TALLAHASSEE MALL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT J. ROGERS AND IVA LOU ROGERS, APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed trial court judgment that lessor's consent to lease assignment was either given, waived, or unreasonably withheld, making the assignment valid despite lack of written consent.
A lease assignment without prior written consent is valid if the lessor either consented orally, waived the written consent requirement, or unreasonably withheld consent.
[1] A lease assignment made without the lessor's prior written consent is not rendered invalid or terminable merely by the breach, and the lessor's consent may be established…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLessees' assignor assigned a lease to the lessees without obtaining the lessor's prior written consent, as required by the lease terms.…
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 Assignment Of Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
First, we find and hold that appel-lees, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, had standing to bring their action there.
Second, recognizing that the lease which is the subject matter of this litigation was breached when appellees’ assignor assigned same to appellees without the prior written consent of appellant, we nevertheless hold, in accordance with the cases cited in the briefs, that such breach neither rendered the assignment invalid nor terminated the lease; therefore, we agree with the trial court that the primary issue to be resolved was whether appellant unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment. In that regard we find that there was sufficient competent evidence-before the trial court, apparently believed, to have sustained a finding that appellant did in fact consent to the assignment, though not in writing; that appellant waived by its actions the requirement of written consent; and that in any event appellant’s consent was unreasonably withheld.
No useful purpose will be accomplished by recitation here of the evidence upon which we base the foregoing findings. That evidence is meticulously recounted in the briefs of the parties with citations to appropriate portions of the record on appeal. It was also recited during oral argument before the court.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. Vazquez, 397 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…lessor to any assignment and the lease does not contain limiting language requiring a reasonable withholding thereof, the lessor may refuse or decline to give such consent for any or no reason.” Id at 272. See also Tallahassee Mall, Inc. v. Rogers, 352 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The primary issue is whether appellant unreasonably withheld consent. There is no indication in the opinion if the lease contained language limiting the refusal. . The arbitrary and capricious rule does not apply where (a) the…
-
Rylander v. Benny Teschouva, 864 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dugan v. Haige, 54 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1951); Horatio Enter., Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Tallahassee Mall, Inc. v. Rogers, 352 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).…
-
Horatio Enters., Inc. v. Rabin, 566 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…h Cir.1959); Steen v. Scott, 144 Fla. 702, 198 So. 489 (1940); Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Palms Publishing Co., 86 Fla. 371, 372, 98 So. 143, 144 (1923); Holman v. Halford, 518 So. 2d 442, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Tallahassee Mall, Inc. v. Rogers, 352 So. 2d 1272, 1272-73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Gould v. Ruzakowski, 345 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Tollius v. Dutch Inns of America, Inc., 244 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 437 (Fla.1971); City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Ste…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence