PALM CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
183RD STREET THEATRE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Palm Corporation, a landlord, appealed a circuit court order enjoining its county court eviction action against its tenant, 183rd Street Theatre Corporation. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the county court proceedings because the tenant's equitable defenses were properly available in the landlord-tenant action itself.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the county court proceedings because the facts alleged as equitable defenses in the circuit court complaint were available as defenses in the county court action, and the county court has exclusive jurisdiction over landlord-tenant actions.
[1] A circuit court errs in enjoining a county court landlord-tenant eviction action when the tenant's equitable defenses and grounds for injunction are available as defenses…
[2] County courts have exclusive jurisdiction over landlord and tenant actions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the only defense on a petition to remove a tenant for non-payment of rent was proof of the payment of the rent”
Distinguishes old law to show that modern law now permits equitable defenses in landlord-tenant proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Corporation, as landlord, brought an eviction action in county court against 183rd Street Theatre Corporation for non-payment of rent, claiming t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
Palm Corporation was the defendant below in an action brought by the 183rd Street Theatre Corporation to enjoin a cause in the county court wherein Palm Corporation, as landlord, sought the eviction of its tenant, the 183rd Street Theatre Corporation. The circuit court issued an injunction, without notice, enjoining the prosecution of the action in the county court and, upon Palm Corporation’s motion to dissolve the injunction, denied the motion and continued the injunction. This appeal is from that order. We hold that the denial of the motion to dissolve the injunction was error because the allegations of the complaint in the circuit court set forth as equitable defenses and grounds for the injunction only those facts which could be pleaded as defenses in the county court action.
The landlord brought the action in the county court to evict the tenant pursuant to Section 51.011, Florida Statutes (1975). It alleged the forfeiture of the tenancy due to a default in the payment of rent. The lease agreement between the parties allegedly waived the three day notice requirement under Section 83.20(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The tenant’s complaint in the circuit court consisted of two counts. The first sought to enjoin the county court from proceeding in the suit because the landlord had waived his right to claim forfeiture on the grounds of the late tender of a rental payment. Count 2 sought a declaration of rights under the lease agreements and a declaration of whether the waiver of the three day notice was effective.
Under the law prior to the 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, it was held that the only defense on a petition to remove a tenant for non-payment of rent was proof of the payment of the rent. See Masser v. London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474, 145 So. 79 (1932). It is clear from subsequent holdings that the trial court, in landlord and tenant proceedings, may now consider all equitable defenses. See Filaretou v. Christou, 133 So. 2d 652 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); and Avvenire College for Women, Inc. v. G.B.D., Inc., 240 So. 2d 191 (Fla.4th DCA 1970).1 Therefore, any facts constituting an equitable defense such as those alleged in the complaint in the circuit court are available to the defense in the landlord and tenant proceeding. The circuit court is the appellate court in which county court judgments are reviewed on appeal. It, therefore, appears that the circuit court here has taken jurisdiction to declare defenses which it would ordinarily be called upon to review in an appellate proceeding. The county court has exclusive jurisdiction in landlord and tenant actions. See Section 34.011(2), Florida Statutes (1975). We, therefore, hold that the injunction was wrongfully entered and should have been dissolved upon motion when it was made to appear to the circuit court that the facts alleged in the complaint before it as equitable defenses were available as defenses in the county court.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint in the circuit court.
Reversed and remanded.
Pursuant to rehearing granted, the court has reconsidered the record in light of briefs and argument of counsel for the appellee and has concluded that our opinion and judgment filed January 11,1977 should be adhered to.
. See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110 and 1.140.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Camena Invs. & Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Cross, 791 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…roblem of commercial tenants remaining on the premises for the duration of litigation without paying the landlord rent.”). While the tenant may assert all equitable defenses in a landlord/tenant dispute, see Palm Corp. v. 183rd Street Theatre Corp., 344 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), there is no obligation to do so in the summary procedure action. Just as the landlord does not have to assert all its claims in the action to remove the tenant, the tenant does not have to assert all its defenses. The tenant…
-
Herrell v. Seyfarth, 491 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…n a possessory action “any defense or counterclaim within the jurisdiction of the court.” Avvenire College for Women, Inc. v. G.B.D., Inc., 240 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (e.s.). Accord, Palm Corporation v. 183rd Street Theatre Corporation, 344 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. den., 355 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1978). The latter opinion did not discuss its earlier, contrary holding in Brownlee v. Sussman, 238 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), denying the tenant the right to assert affirmative defenses other…
-
Malt v. R. J. Mueller Enters., Inc., 396 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…tantial breach of the sublease. The landlord admitted never paying any rent on this sublease and the trial court could, thus, have properly considered those as equitable defenses to eviction. See Palm Corporation v. 183rd Street Theater Corporation, 344 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1978). We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing the landlord’s request for eviction. As to the reformation issue, we also find no demonstration of error. A court will reform a co…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Masser v. The London Operating Co., 106 Fla. 474 (Fla. 1932)
- Copeland v. Allen, 240 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Filaretos S. Filaretou v. Vasillos Christou and Pasethea Christou, 133 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)