Kandel v. Comeau Building, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kandel v. Comeau Building, Inc.

462 So. 2d 28, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2595, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16695

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1984

DocketNo. 84-116

StatusPublished

This text of 462 So. 2d 28 (Kandel v. Comeau Building, Inc.) 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

Kandel v. Comeau Building, Inc., 462 So. 2d 28, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2595, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16695 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the defendants, Bernard Kandel and Jacqueline E. Kandel, even though denominated as sub-lessees, were given an option to renew the lease in question by the lessor, which renewal option was reflected by Addendum No. 2 dated November 12,1980. Moreover, it clearly appears that the Kandels validly exercised their option and are entitled to its benefits.

The judgment on appeal is

REVERSED.

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the defendants, Bernard Kandel and Jacqueline E. Kandel, even though denominated as sub-lessees, were given an option to renew the lease in question by the lessor, which renewal option was reflected by Addendum No. 2 dated November 12,1980. Moreover, it clearly appears that the Kandels validly exercised their option and are entitled to its benefits.

The judgment on appeal is

REVERSED.

LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 28, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2595, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kandel-v-comeau-building-inc-fladistctapp-1984.