JEROME BAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROMA FINANCIAL, INC., BILTMORE MOTORS CORP., MARIE BAIN HALFON, ESTHER BAIN FUSSO AND KAY BAIN WEINER, 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.
Jerome Bain appealed a trial court judgment rejecting his claim that a lease of commonly-owned property was void because executed without his consent as co-owner. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a lease by co-owners without joining all co-owners is not void as a matter of law.
A lease is not void as a matter of law merely because one co-owner failed to join in its execution. The non-consenting co-owner's remedies are not limited to ejectment and may require other legal proceedings.
[1] A lease agreement is not void as a matter of law solely due to the failure of a co-owner, who is not a party to the lease, to join in its execution.
[2] A co-owner of property who has not sought ejectment or attempted to gain possession cannot claim a lease entered into by other co-owners is void for their non-participati…
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 lease was not void as a matter of law by the failure to join appellant in the lease”
The trial court's ruling on the directed verdict establishing the central holding of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBain was a tenant in common on a parcel of property. His sisters, Roma Financial, Inc., and others entered into a lease of the property without his pe…
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 Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an amended final judgment and order taxing costs. We affirm.
Appellant brought an action against appellee Roma Financial, Inc., for having entered into a lease with his sisters, without his permission, for a parcel of property of which he was a co-owner as tenant in common. Thereafter, he filed an amended complaint and joined his sisters as co-defendants. Appellant sought, among other things to have the lease declared null and void. Subsequently, the matter proceeded to a jury trial, and, pursuant to appellees’ motion for a directed verdict, the trial court ruled that as a matter of law the lease was not void as a matter of law by the failure to join appellant in the lease. The jury, as to the other questions presented, returned a verdict in appellant’s favor, but found no damages due. Thereafter, the trial court awarded an order of costs in favor of appel-lee Roma Financial, Inc., and entered an amended final judgment holding, among other things, that the lease was not void as a matter of law because of the failure of appellant to join in its execution.
Appellant phrases one of his points on appeal as follows: “Whether defendant’s [appellees] summary judgment motion should have been denied where the non-consenting plaintiff [appellant], co-owner, has a right to eject the lessees.”
Both appellant and appellees state that there are no Florida cases directly in line with the point on appeal. However, we have found persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions cited in an Annotation, 49 A.L.R.2d 797 (1956), that support the trial court’s finding that the lease agreement was not void as a matter of law for the failure to join appellant in the lease. Accordingly, we hold that this point is without merit. We note that appellant has neither sought ejectment of the lessees nor attempted to gain possession of the property.
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s other two points on appeal and find them to be without merit. See, e. g., Huffman v. Peek, 102 So. 2d 641 (Fla.2d DCA 1958); and § 57.041 Fla.Stats. (1977).
Affirmed.