Johnson v. Jaquith, 304
| Decision Date | 02 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 304,304 |
| Parties | Harriet Blu JOHNSON, Appellant, v. B. K. JAQUITH et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. T. Maloney, of Patterson & Maloney, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
Mark Maurer, of Maurer & Maurer, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.
Plaintiff, Harriet Blu Johnson, appeals from a final judgment allowing plaintiff partial damages against defendants, B. K. Jaquith, Andrew Anderson, Anderson Engineering and Manufacturing Co., and Technical Industries, Inc., in plaintiff's suit for damages for unpaid rent and for physical damage to the premises owned by the plaintiff and leased to the defendants and their successors.
In July 1959 plaintiff, Harriet Blu Johnson, d/b/a H. E. K. Tool and Manufacturing Co., entered into a lease with Anderson Engineering and Manufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as Anderson Co. The lease called for a monthly rental of $350.00 from July 1, 1959 until June 30, 1964.
The lease contained various covenants including covenants whereby the lessee agreed to maintain the premises in good condition, agreed to indemnify the lessor for all claims, suits and damages which shall arise out of the use of the premises, and agreed to repair any damage to the premises caused by the removal of any fixtures pursuant to the lease. The lease, as modified, also included a clause which provided 'that the lease shall be fully assignable provided, however, that the consent of the lessors is obtained to such assignment, which consent, however, shall not be unreasonably withheld.'
Andrew Anderson signed the lease for the corporation as president and personally guaranteed payment of all sums due or to become due by Anderson Co. pursuant to the terms of the lease.
On June 1, 1960 the lessee, Anderson Co., was sold to a group of investors including the defendant, B. K. Jaquith, who subsequently became president of Anderson Engineering and Manufacturing Co.
On September 12, 1960 Jaquith, as president of Anderson Co., notified plaintiff that the company was moving part of the equipment and operation to another location and that the company might wish to sublease the premises under the lease. Later plaintiff received a letter dated December 7, 1960 from Anderson Co., by Jaquith, notifying plaintiff that Production Engineering Company had taken over the operation of the manufacturing operations in the leased property. Enclosed was an assignment of the lease to and assumption of lease by Production Engineering for plaintiff to sign together with Production Engineering's check in the amount of $350.00 for the December rent.
A month later by letter dated January 9, 1961 plaintiff returned the assumption and assignment of lease together with Production Engineering's check. Plaintiff advised that she had inspected the premises and had found them in a deplorable state of repair. Later by letter plaintiff notified defendant Jaquith of Anderson Co. that she could not consent to the assignment of the lease to Production Engineering in that she did not know nor was she able to determine that the company was financially able to meet the obligations under the lease. Plaintiff agreed to recognize the assignment if Production Engineering provided her with a certified financial statement reflecting a satisfactory financial position. Plaintiff refused to accept any rent from Production Engineering. Anderson Co. resumed paying the rent to plaintiff.
By letter dated December 15, 1961 Jaquith of Anderson Co. again urged plaintiff to reconsider the assignment of the lease to Production Engineering. In order to persuade plaintiff to accept the assignment, Jaquith made the following statement:
'Might I suggest that if Anderson Engineering would enter an agreement with you To guarantee and forward to you the lease payments, this should remove any concern on financial stability and reluctance to accept Production Engineering as a tenant. * * *' (Emphasis added.)
On January 3, 1962 the defendant Jaquith again requested plaintiff to accept the assignment. Plaintiff again refused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Vazquez
...v. Pet Inc., supra, American Book Co. v. Yeshiva University, Development Foundation, Inc., 59 Misc.2d 31, 297 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1969); Johnson v. Jaquith, supra. Denying consent solely on the basis of personal taste, convenience or sensibility or in order that the landlord may charge a higher r......
-
Providence v. Jt Bldg.
...the payment of the rent for the remainder of the lease); Ringwood, 153 N.J. Super. at 301-02, 379 A.2d at 511 (citing Johnson v. Jaquith, 189 So.2d 827 (Fla. App. 1966)) (stating that whether the assignor is willing to guarantee assignee's performance of the lease covenants, including the p......
-
Davis v. JT Building and Development, LLC
... ... Ringwood , 153 N.J.Super. at 301-02, 379 A.2d at 511 ... (citing Johnson v. Jaquith , 189 So.2d 827 (Fla. App ... 1966)) (stating that whether the assignor is ... ...
-
Ringwood Associates, Ltd. v. Jack's of Route 23, Inc.
...the lease is a substantial factor to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lessor's refusal of consent. Johnson v. Jaquith, 189 So.2d 827 (Fla.App.1966); Adams, Harkness & Hill Inc. v. Northeast Realty Corp., 361 Mass. 552, 281 N.E.2d 262 (Sup.1972); Grossman v. Barney, sup......