ROBERT L. BLUM, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
KOHLMEYER & COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., 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 judgment for lessee in constructive eviction and breach of quiet enjoyment action where lessors failed to return security deposit and lessee lost improvements due to zoning violation forcing vacation of leasehold.
A lessee may recover a security deposit with interest and losses from improvements when constructively evicted due to a zoning violation affecting the leasehold.
[1] A lessee may recover unreturned security deposits with interest and losses from improvements when constructively evicted due to a zoning violation affecting the leasehold…
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 intelligenceA brokerage firm leased space in a luxury apartment-hotel complex on Miami Beach and made improvements to the leasehold. The lessee and its sub-lessee…
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 Leasehold Improvements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants/defendants/lessors appeal from a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee/plaintiff/lessee in an action grounded upon constructive eviction and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. The action, itself, was occasioned by appellee and its sub-lessee, both brokerage firms, having to vacate the leasehold located in appellants’ luxury apartment-hotel complex on Miami Beach, because of a zoning violation.1 After a non- jury hearing, the trial judge entered a money judgment in favor of appellee/lessee consisting of (1) an amount representing a security deposit which appellants/lessors failed to return to appellee plus interest thereon, and (2) an amount covering the loss sustained by appellee because of certain improvements made to the leasehold by both appellee and its sub-lessee.
While appellants have raised certain points on appeal, including the contention that the trial judge erred in failing to require appellee to join the sub-lessee as an indispensible party plaintiff to the suit, after a careful review of the record in light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that the final judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
. See City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 269 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); cert. den. 276 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1973); 300 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); cert. den. 414 U.S. 859, 94 S.Ct. 70, 38 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), where the City of Miami Beach zoning ordinance prohibiting service stores, etc., in apartment houses was declared not to be unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Duncan, 414 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1973)
- Desmarais v. Wachusett Reg'l Sch. Dist., 414 U.S. 859 (U.S. 1973)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 269 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- French v. State, 276 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1973)