Englezios v. Batmasian

• Decision Date: 22 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-0508,91-0508
• Citation: Englezios v. Batmasian, 593 So.2d 1077 (Fla. App. 1992)
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D304 George ENGLEZIOS, Appellant, v. James H. BATMASIAN, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1077

593 So.2d 1077

17 Fla. L. Weekly D304

George ENGLEZIOS, Appellant, v.James H. BATMASIAN, et al., Appellees.

No. 91-0508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Jan. 22, 1992.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1992.

Christopher W. Boyden of Boyden & Laufer, North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Geoffrey C. Bennett of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee-James H. Batmasian.

LETTS, Judge.

By way of a counterclaim, a tenant seeks to avoid the consequences of breaching a lease, alleging that the landlord fraudulently misrepresented that there was sufficient parking available to enable the tenant to gain governmental approval to operate a sit-down restaurant.From the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of the landlord, the tenant now appeals.We affirm.

Paragraph twenty-eight of the applicable lease, first executed on January 8, 1987, clearly sets forth that the lease's validity was contingent upon the tenant receiving approval to operate a restaurant on the premises and gives the tenant the right to terminate the lease and receive a rent refund if he could not get the approval by a time certain.¹Later, in December of 1987, the tenant, with the consent of the landlord, subleased the premises, but the tenant was specifically not released from any of his obligations under the original lease.By November of 1988, the subtenant had defaulted and the original tenant re-assumed the lease by simply re-dating the original one and agreeing to pay for the subtenant's arrearages in rent.No new consideration was given for this re-assumption.

Thereafter, the tenant defaulted and the landlord sued the tenant for nonpayment of base rent.The tenant counterclaimed averring that the landlord knew all along that the premises could not be used as a sit-down restaurant; nevertheless, the landlord made fraudulent, oral representations that it could be so utilized.The foregoing sets forth what we deem to be the facts and circumstances necessary to decide this case.However, there are numerous typing errors and other peculiarities in connection with the language employed and the execution of the various documents that are neither clarified nor explained in the briefs.For example, the record contains a supposed agreement between the landlord, the subtenant and the City of Boca Raton relative to the operation of a restaurant, which is never alluded to on appeal.Needless to say, it is up to the appellant to demonstrate error.We conclude he has failed to do...