Kanter v. Safran
| Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
| Parties | Harry KANTER and Rose Kanter, his wife, Appellants, v. Jennie SAFRAN and Emerick Gluck, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kanter & Marks, Miami, and Weldon G. Starry, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellees.
In the previous appearance of this case, Kanter v. Safran, Fla., 68 So.2d 553, all issues were foreclosed save whether or not on the basis of facts developed subsequent to the trial of the cause the lessors had abandoned their right to relet the premises for the lessees' account. We reversed the final decree to afford the lessees an opportunity to offer proof on this issue, if any they had.
The issue has now been tried, and a supplemental final decree entered, from which this appeal is taken by the lessors. The supplemental final decree achieves the same result as the original decree, but is predicated upon the conclusion that the lessors, at some uncertain date, abandoned their right to relet the premises. The chancellor apparently tried the issue de novo, for early in the supplemental proceedings the following colloquy took place
'Mr. Grusmark: It is.
'Mr. Kanter: It is in the testimony of the case.
'Mr. Grusmark: I just want to make it clearer.
'Mr. Kanter: I do not believe there is any need to repeat it.
Perhaps because of this ruling, most of the testimony adduced was merely cumulative of evidence taken at the original trial which we previously held insufficient to support a decree in the lessees' favor.
In Kanter v. Safran, supra, we held in effect that after the default of the lessees, the lessors so explicitly and unequivocally declared their intention of reletting the premises for the account of the lessees, see the letter reproduced in part at 68 So.2d 553, 555, that proof of the alleged abandonment of this right by the lessors must necessarily be equally clear and convincing. If the original proof fell short of this standard, the supplemental proof now before us is inadequate a fortiori.
As nearly as we can ascertain, the only genuinely new factor brought into the case is that the lessors have entered a new five-year lease with third parties. This is wholly consistent with, and in support of, the lessors' avowed intent to relet for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Platt v. Mannheimer
...not be construed as providing for liquidated damages. The Kanter case returned to the Supreme Court of Florida styled as Kanter v. Safran, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 508. The trial court found that the lessor had re-entered for his own account. The Supreme Court again reversed the lower court holdi......
-
Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc.
...law requires "clear and convincing evidence" to cancel, rescind, or reform a written document or deny its enforcement. See Kanter v. Safran, 82 So.2d 508 (Fla.1955), and Kanter v. Safran, 68 So.2d 553 (Fla.1953) (enforcement of lease); Bell Corp. v. Bahama Bar & Restaurant, Inc., 74 So.2d 2......
-
Vareka Investments, N.V. v. American Inv. Properties, Inc.
...only to recoup only what he can in good faith, consistent with his own interest as well as that of the defaulting lessee. Kanter v. Safran, 82 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla.1955). Although not specifically applicable to this case, Kanter indicates that Florida law requires a good-faith effort to miti......
-
Babsdon Co. v. Thrifty Parking Co., 62-201
...of the unlawful detainer action, without more, as an abandonment by the appellant of its previously chosen course. See Kanter v. Safran, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 508. We, therefore, hold that the chancellor erred in finding that the appellant, by bringing the unlawful detainer action, elected to ......