Augusta Corp. v. Strawn
| Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-789,64-789 |
| Citation | 174 So.2d 422 |
| Parties | AUGUSTA CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Edna H. STRAWN and Iva L. Hillyer, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ward & Ward, Miami, for appellant.
Dunbar H. Johnson, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARONS and SWANN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a Final Decree entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in a suit to cancel and terminate a lease.
The appellant, Augusta Corporation, was the defendant below, and Edna H. Strawn and Iva L. Hillyer, appellees herein, were plaintiffs. Augusta Corporation will be referred to as appellant herein, and the other parties as appellees.
The appellees instituted a suit in Chancery to cancel a ninety-nine year lease which existed between the appellees as lessors and the appellant as lessee. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, appellant erected ninety-six apartment units on the property covered by the ninety-nine year lease.
The case was tried on the question of whether or not the appellant had allowed the property to become in such substantial disrepair as to entitle the appellees to a cancellation of the lease for the failure of the appellant to maintain the property in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement.
The appellant admitted the property was in need of repair, but contended that it should be relieved from a forfeiture of its leasehold interest if the court found that it had breached its covenant of repair. The appellant corporation claimed it was unable to take any affirmative action to repair or maintain the premises as a result of 'internal strife' existing between the two fifty percent stockholders of appellant corporation. This 'internal strife' was not rectified until subsequent to the filing of the suit to cancel the lease, and prior to the final hearing in the cause.
The Chancellor found that the premises covered by the ninety-nine year lease had fallen into a substantial state of disrepair, and that the appellant had failed to repair the same after having received notice from the appellee to put the building in a good state of repair in accordance with the lease.
The Chancellor determined that the inability of the corporation to furnish and to make the necessary repairs, because of internal strife in the corporation, was not sufficient reason for a court of equity to exercise its discretion and to relieve the tenant from the forfeiture of its leasehold estate.
The Chancellor accordingly entered a final decree cancelling the lease and from this final decree the appellant has prosecuted this appeal. We agree with the Chancellor.
Under a provision of a lease or an agreement, to the effect that a breach of a covenant to repair or remedy defects in the premises shall work a forfeiture, it will, in the absence of special circumstances, permit the lessor to declare a forfeiture on occurrence of the breach. This is true even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin
...397 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Augusta Corp. v. Strawn, 174 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. In Helman v. Seaboard Coastline Rai......
-
Wiley v. Shanahan
...the witness decides whether or not a question may tend to incriminate. Ex Parte Senior, Fla. 1896, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652, 32 L.R.A. 133.' 174 So.2d 422. A common analogous situation is an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service which permits the commissioner to issue a summons requiri......
-
Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 83-1262
...or to repair or remedy defects or to pay taxes. See 34 Fla.Jur[.]2d, Landlord and Tenant, Section 116; and Augusta [Corporation] v. Strawn, 174 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1965). It is also axiomatic that a Court of equity may relieve a lessee against forfeiture when the effect of enforcing t......
-
Atria Grp., LLC v. One Progress Plaza, II, LLC
...lessor to declare a forfeiture on occurrence of the breach. This is true even though the condition is a harsh one.Augusta Corp. v. Strawn, 174 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ; see also Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, 448 So.2d 62, 62–63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (acknowledging that “[i]t is a recog......