St. Petersburg Waterfront Restaurant Corp. v. Bay Pines Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

St. Petersburg Waterfront Restaurant Corp. v. Bay Pines Enterprises, Inc.

568 So. 2d 936, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6557, 1990 WL 126208

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 1990

DocketNo. 89-02519

StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 936 (St. Petersburg Waterfront Restaurant Corp. v. Bay Pines Enterprises, 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

St. Petersburg Waterfront Restaurant Corp. v. Bay Pines Enterprises, Inc., 568 So. 2d 936, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6557, 1990 WL 126208 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment for the landlord in this landlord tenant case.

The evidence of the tenant’s breach was sufficient to support the forfeiture of the lease. We may not reweigh sufficient evidence. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Also, the evidence from the terms of the lease and from the actions of the parties was sufficient to show their agreement and understanding that the tenant was to continue to operate a restaurant on the leased premises. Accordingly, the evidence supported the trial court’s award of damages for breach of the lease based upon (a) the percentage of gross receipts which the lease provided for as rent, notwithstanding that the lease provided for such percentage against a minimum dollar amount, and (b) the amount of gross receipts which other evidence showed should have been generated from the operation of the restaurant during the period of the tenant’s breach. See Jerrico, Inc. v. Washington National Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., HALL, J., and SEALS, JAMES H., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment for the landlord in this landlord tenant case.

The evidence of the tenant’s breach was sufficient to support the forfeiture of the lease. We may not reweigh sufficient evidence. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Also, the evidence from the terms of the lease and from the actions of the parties was sufficient to show their agreement and understanding that the tenant was to continue to operate a restaurant on the leased premises. Accordingly, the evidence supported the trial court’s award of damages for breach of the lease based upon (a) the percentage of gross receipts which the lease provided for as rent, notwithstanding that the lease provided for such percentage against a minimum dollar amount, and (b) the amount of gross receipts which other evidence showed should have been generated from the operation of the restaurant during the period of the tenant’s breach. See Jerrico, Inc. v. Washington National Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., HALL, J., and SEALS, JAMES H., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 936, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6557, 1990 WL 126208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-petersburg-waterfront-restaurant-corp-v-bay-pines-enterprises-inc-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack