Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 83-1262

• Decision Date: 10 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1262,83-1262
• Citation: 448 So.2d 62
• Parties: Patrick F. SMITH, James T. Bernhardt and Joan M. Bernhardt, Appellants, v. WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 62

448 So.2d 62

Patrick F. SMITH, James T. Bernhardt and Joan M. Bernhardt, Appellants, v. WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 83-1262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

April 10, 1984.

Holland & Knight, Thomas G. Schultz and Paul M. Bauch, Miami, for appellants.

Lapidus & Stettin and Richard Lapidus, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

We have reviewed the Final Judgment entered by the trial court in favor of The Grand Union Company ^*. The court considered whether:

[U]nder the facts of this case, should a Court of equity relieve a tenant from forfeiture of a lease where said tenant defaults on the lease and the jury determines that the owner has not waived the default under the terms of said lease.

Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, testimony, and argument of the parties, the trial court concluded:

It is a recognized principle of law that if there is an express provision of the lease providing for forfeiture upon a default for failure to comply with any obligation under the lease,5 forfeiture of a lease may be permitted. Forfeiture of leases have been permitted for breach on the part of the lessee to pay rent 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 the tenant's default would result in an eviction which would be unconscionable, inequitable or unjust under the circumstances. Rader v. Prather,6 , 130 So. 15 (Fla.1930), and Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan v. Century 21, 416 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1982); Brady v. Edgar, 415 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th D.C.A.1982). It has long been the law in this State that contractual provisions for forfeiture are not favored and will be strictly construed against the party seeking to invoke them and will [be] enforced unless the Court finds substantial, egregious or continued violations of the conditions of the lease. Augusta Corporation v. Strawn, 174 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1965). The rule that equity will relieve lesses [sic] from a forfeiture incurred by breach of a condition contained in a lease based upon the notion that forfeiture is intended merely as security for payment of money. Rader v. Prather, , 130 So. 15 (Fla.1930). Further, [130 So.], at page 18 of the Rader opinion,

"In absence of gross negligence or willful and persistent violation of the contract, such matters as are alleged in the bill of complaint should appeal to the conscience of a Court of equity and [are] ordinarily sufficient to justify granting relief from a forfeiture." (emphasis supplied)

In this case the lease is one that has been in existence for a long period of time. The tenant Grand Union duly paid rent and taxes, and substantially complied with the other obligations under the lease. Granting the fact that Smith acted in accordance with the terms of the lease insofar as notifying Grand Union of their breach, in light of the size and complexity of the corporate structure of Grand Union, said breach amounts to no more than excusable neglect. Under the facts of this case to allow the landlord the right to evict the tenant would be inequitable and unconscionable. This is particularly true when the lease has been of long standing and the breach is of a covenant of relatively minor importance. Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So.2d 393 (Fla.1954). Although the default was a technical violation, the Court does not find it a willful, deliberate or intentional violation of a material covenant of the lease, particularly in view of the relatively prompt attempt to correct the default by the return of the $495.00 to reimburse for the City's lien by Grand Union by its letter of January 30, 1980.

As further ground for relief Smith asserts that Grand Union's overall conduct constitutes unclean hands, failure to do equity and illegal conduct which prevents it from asserting any equitable defenses. In particular, evidence was presented by Grand Union that...