Margolis v. Malesky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Margolis v. Malesky

515 So. 2d 425, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2651, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11088

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-0205

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 515 So. 2d 425 (Margolis v. Malesky) 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

Margolis v. Malesky, 515 So. 2d 425, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2651, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by tenants and a cross appeal by the landlord. The tenants’ appeal was dismissed by this court on July 3, 1986, upon stipulation of the parties. As to the cross appeal, we reverse and remand with direction to enter judgment for the landlord on the issues of the validity of the lease and the tenants’ right to return of rent. At oral argument, landlord’s counsel announced a waiver of any further claims for damages based on continued nonperformance by the tenants.

The landlord’s cross appeal is from the second paragraph of the final judgment, declaring the lease of the adjoining 808 square feet to be null and void and directing recovery from the landlord of $11,-660.04 in rent paid by the tenants. We conclude both determinations to be erroneous.

The lease clearly shows that the subject premises were leased to the tenants for use as an office; and any use of the premises for the expansion of the tenants’ existing restaurant was specifically conditioned on the tenants obtaining approval of restaurant space “in addition to” existing restaurant space allotment. By the terms of the lease, the landlord clearly made no representation as to whether the tenants would be able to use the leased premises for their desired restaurant expansion. Furthermore, the record shows that the tenants had contemplated the possibility of not receiving the necessary approval from the City of Delray Beach and had determined that in such event, the leased premises would be used as an office or for storage space.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by tenants and a cross appeal by the landlord. The tenants’ appeal was dismissed by this court on July 3, 1986, upon stipulation of the parties. As to the cross appeal, we reverse and remand with direction to enter judgment for the landlord on the issues of the validity of the lease and the tenants’ right to return of rent. At oral argument, landlord’s counsel announced a waiver of any further claims for damages based on continued nonperformance by the tenants.

The landlord’s cross appeal is from the second paragraph of the final judgment, declaring the lease of the adjoining 808 square feet to be null and void and directing recovery from the landlord of $11,-660.04 in rent paid by the tenants. We conclude both determinations to be erroneous.

The lease clearly shows that the subject premises were leased to the tenants for use as an office; and any use of the premises for the expansion of the tenants’ existing restaurant was specifically conditioned on the tenants obtaining approval of restaurant space “in addition to” existing restaurant space allotment. By the terms of the lease, the landlord clearly made no representation as to whether the tenants would be able to use the leased premises for their desired restaurant expansion. Furthermore, the record shows that the tenants had contemplated the possibility of not receiving the necessary approval from the City of Delray Beach and had determined that in such event, the leased premises would be used as an office or for storage space.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 So. 2d 425, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2651, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-malesky-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack