Lassiter v. Kaufman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lassiter v. Kaufman

563 So. 2d 209, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631, 1990 WL 86931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1990

DocketNo. 88-2467

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 563 So. 2d 209 (Lassiter v. Kaufman) 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

Lassiter v. Kaufman, 563 So. 2d 209, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4631, 1990 WL 86931 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s amended motion for rehearing and clarification, and substitute the following opinion for the majority view of our original opinion:

AFFIRMED on the authority of Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc. v. Thompson, 458 So.2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also the dissent in Contos v. Lipsky, 433 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Because we recognize a possible conflict with the Contos majority, we certify the following question to the supreme court:

IN THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LEASED PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE EXERCISE OF A LESSEE’S OPTION TO PURCHASE, MAY THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDER THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE FEE UNENCUMBERED BY THE LEASE?

STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur. DOWNEY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

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