Archibald v. Mastriana

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Archibald v. Mastriana

498 So. 2d 642, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2592, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11303

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2316

StatusPublished

This text of 498 So. 2d 642 (Archibald v. Mastriana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archibald v. Mastriana, 498 So. 2d 642, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2592, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11303 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an action brought by appellants, lessors, to terminate a lease, summary final judgment for the lessee determined that no substantial or compensable breach of the terms of the lease had occurred. We reverse, finding at least the following unresolved genuine, material issues of fact:

1.Whether the original building on the premises was entirely demolished and then rebuilt or just “remodeled,” as represented in conflicting affidavits;

2. Whether the original and the rebuilt or remodeled building were of comparable value;

3. Whether the “fixtures” in the original building were movable or nonmovable;

4. Whether the “old” and “new” fixtures were of comparable type, condition and value.

Questions, of law in the case include whether the “alterations” or “destruction” clauses of the lease permitted demolition and rebuilding of the original building, and whether the lease permitted the lessee to dispose of fixtures. The above-stated factual questions, however, must be determined before the law can appropriately be applied to the facts.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI