Schmerer v. Hammer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schmerer v. Hammer

155 So. 2d 710

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1963

DocketNo. 63-31

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 2d 710 (Schmerer v. Hammer) 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

Schmerer v. Hammer, 155 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs brought an action for specific performance of an alleged oral renewal of a lease for one year. A summary final judgment for the defendants was entered and plaintiffs appeal.

The appellants rely on S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27th Avenue Farmers Market, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 167 which held that an oral agreement to execute a renewal lease would be enforced where the tenant remained in possession under the oral agreement, paid the stipulated monthly rent for several months of the renewal term, made substantial improvements upon the leased premises and purchased merchandise and equipment in reliance upon the agreement; and where the lessor continued to retain a rent security deposit.

The chancellor here correctly held that the Lemel decision was inapplicable to the instant situation because it appears without issue that the plaintiff used the security deposit for the last month’s rent of the term provided by the written lease and showed no reliance upon the alleged promise other than the holding over after the term.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs brought an action for specific performance of an alleged oral renewal of a lease for one year. A summary final judgment for the defendants was entered and plaintiffs appeal.

The appellants rely on S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27th Avenue Farmers Market, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 167 which held that an oral agreement to execute a renewal lease would be enforced where the tenant remained in possession under the oral agreement, paid the stipulated monthly rent for several months of the renewal term, made substantial improvements upon the leased premises and purchased merchandise and equipment in reliance upon the agreement; and where the lessor continued to retain a rent security deposit.

The chancellor here correctly held that the Lemel decision was inapplicable to the instant situation because it appears without issue that the plaintiff used the security deposit for the last month’s rent of the term provided by the written lease and showed no reliance upon the alleged promise other than the holding over after the term.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 2d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmerer-v-hammer-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack