Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. v. May-Jax, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. v. May-Jax, Inc.

298 So. 2d 445, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8896

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1974

DocketNo. T-357

StatusPublished

This text of 298 So. 2d 445 (Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. v. May-Jax, 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

Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. v. May-Jax, Inc., 298 So. 2d 445, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8896 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, briefs filed by counsel for the respective parties herein, and oral argument of counsel before the court, we are of the [446]*446view that the trial court’s resolution of the dispute between the parties as to the proper apportionment of the deposit made by appellee in connection with its agreement to lease appellant’s real property, which was not consummated because of a title defect which would have interfered with the exercise of appellee’s option to purchase contained in said lease agreement, is not in error. The trial court’s apportionment of the deposit appears consistent with the decisions of the court in Pembroke v. Caudill, 37 So.2d 538 (Fla.1948); Paradis v. Second Avenue Used Car Co., 61 So.2d 919 (Fla.1952); and, more recently, Championship Sports, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 221 So.2d 24 (Fla.App.1969).

Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. RAWLS, C. J., concurs in part, dissents in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, briefs filed by counsel for the respective parties herein, and oral argument of counsel before the court, we are of the [446]*446view that the trial court’s resolution of the dispute between the parties as to the proper apportionment of the deposit made by appellee in connection with its agreement to lease appellant’s real property, which was not consummated because of a title defect which would have interfered with the exercise of appellee’s option to purchase contained in said lease agreement, is not in error. The trial court’s apportionment of the deposit appears consistent with the decisions of the court in Pembroke v. Caudill, 37 So.2d 538 (Fla.1948); Paradis v. Second Avenue Used Car Co., 61 So.2d 919 (Fla.1952); and, more recently, Championship Sports, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 221 So.2d 24 (Fla.App.1969).

Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. RAWLS, C. J., concurs in part, dissents in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 So. 2d 445, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kloeppel-hotels-inc-v-may-jax-inc-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack