A. G. SPANOS AND DEAN A. SPANOS, APPELLANTS,
v.
U. S. HOME MORTGAGE 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.
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment dismissing a claim for anticipatory breach of a lease, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the lessors suffered damages when the lessee repudiated the lease.
Summary judgment was improper because the record did not conclusively demonstrate that the lessors would be unable to prove damages. The lessor's testimony about the customized nature of the space and the difficulty of re-leasing it raised material questions of fact regarding potential damages that must be resolved at trial.
[1] The measure of damages for anticipatory breach of a lease is the difference between the rent fixed in the lease and the present fair rental value of the premises for the…
[2] A lessor may recover prospective damages for the anticipatory breach of a lease.
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“[W]hen a lessee repudiates his contract, a cause of action immediately arises in favor of the lessor for full damages, present and prospective, which were the necessary and direct result of the breach, the measure of which is the difference (reduced to present worth) between the rent fixed in the lease and the present fair rental value of the premises for the remainder of the term, together with such special damages as may have resulted from the breach.”
Establishes the legal standard for measuring damages in an anticipatory breach of lease case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA lessor brought a claim against a lessee (U.S. Home Mortgage Corporation) for anticipatory breach of a commercial lease. The lessor admitted in depos…
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.
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment against a claim for the anticipatory breach of a lease on the ground that regardless of whether the lessee had breached the lease, the record showed that the lessors had not suffered any damages as a result.
In Kanter v. Safran, 68 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1953), our supreme court approved the following measure of damages for the recovery for the anticipatory breach of a lease:
“ . . . [W]hen a lessee repudiates his contract, a cause of action immediately arises in favor of the lessor for full damages, present and prospective, which were the necessary and direct result of the breach, the measure of which is the difference (reduced to present worth) between the rent fixed in the lease and the present fair rental value of the premises for the remainder of the term, together with such special damages as may have resulted from the breach. This is simply an application to lease contracts of the doctrine of ‘anticipatory breach’ in general contract law . .
The basis for the summary judgment entered in this case was that one of the lessors admitted in his deposition that the rental specified under the subject lease was lower than the present rental value for comparable premises and lower than the rental being charged by the lessors for most other offices in the same building. However, we think the court overlooked some equally significant testimony by the same witness who pointed out that the leased premises had been constructed to meet the exact requirements of the lessee and that there was very little likelihood of finding another tenant who would lease the space without substantial alterations having to be made. He explained that if it is necessary to specially design the office space to meet a lessee’s requirements, the extra expenses would have to be recouped during the term of the lease by increasing the amount of the rental payments.
The present state of the record does not conclusively show that the lessors will be unable to prove any damages. Therefore, the movant failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that no material issues remain for trial. Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1966); Smith v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 297 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
REVERSED.
SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)
- Kanter et ux. v. Safran, 68 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1953)
- Smith v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 297 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)