Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc. v. Catovest International, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc. v. Catovest International, Inc.

820 So. 2d 947, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4978, 2002 WL 561919

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-3464

StatusPublished

This text of 820 So. 2d 947 (Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc. v. Catovest International, 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

Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc. v. Catovest International, Inc., 820 So. 2d 947, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4978, 2002 WL 561919 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee Catovest International, Inc., in which the trial court held that Catovest did not have any notice of a lease prior to purchasing the building where Pepe Coin Laundries’ machines were located. We affirm.

Section 695.01(1), Florida Statutes (2000), states: “No ... lease for a term of 1 year or longer, shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law.” It is uncontested that the lease in this case was not recorded and Catovest did not have actual notice of the existence of a laundry space lease.

[948]*948Pepe Coin Laundries argues that Catovest had implied notice of the lease. “In order to charge a person with notice of information which might have been learned by inquiry, the circumstances must be such as should reasonably suggest inquiry.” Rafkind v. Beer, 426 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We agree with the trial court that the presence of one washer and dryer, with a small sign stating whom to call for repairs, is not enough to impute implied notice of a lease to Cato-vest.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pepe Coin Laundries, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee Catovest International, Inc., in which the trial court held that Catovest did not have any notice of a lease prior to purchasing the building where Pepe Coin Laundries’ machines were located. We affirm.

Section 695.01(1), Florida Statutes (2000), states: “No ... lease for a term of 1 year or longer, shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law.” It is uncontested that the lease in this case was not recorded and Catovest did not have actual notice of the existence of a laundry space lease.

[948]*948Pepe Coin Laundries argues that Catovest had implied notice of the lease. “In order to charge a person with notice of information which might have been learned by inquiry, the circumstances must be such as should reasonably suggest inquiry.” Rafkind v. Beer, 426 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We agree with the trial court that the presence of one washer and dryer, with a small sign stating whom to call for repairs, is not enough to impute implied notice of a lease to Cato-vest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 947, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4978, 2002 WL 561919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepe-coin-laundries-inc-v-catovest-international-inc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack