Thomas v. Jones, 86-1131
| Decision Date | 31 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1131,86-1131 |
| Citation | 524 So.2d 693,13 Fla. L. Weekly 835 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 835 Arthur E. THOMAS, et al., Appellants, v. Rebert JONES, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Johnie A. McLeod, of McLeod, McLeod & McLeod, Apopka, for appellants.
Lee Jay Colling, of Colling & Beattie, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.
John T. Allen, Jr., and Christopher P. Jayson, of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, for amicus curiae Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida, Inc.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
Pursuant to the appellants' motion for rehearing in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331, we have considered this case en banc. We vacate our per curiam panel decision filed September 29, 1987 and substitute the following opinion.
Appellees, approximately one hundred resident mobile home owners in Friendly Adult Estates Mobile Home Park (residents), brought a class action alleging that appellant mobile home park owners had unconscionably raised their lot rental rates. The trial court determined that the residents' claim of unconscionability was maintainable as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220. After a bench trial, the court found the rent increase to have been unconscionable and entered a final judgment in favor of the residents, including an award of attorney's fees. The park owners appeal. We reverse.
A threshold issue in this case is whether a claim of unconscionability can be asserted in a class action. Under the current legal analysis, substantive and procedural unconscionability must both be established to prevail in an unconscionability action. Substantive unconscionability generally can be established by alleging and proving that the terms of a contract are onerous, unreasonable, or unfair. It has been held that substantive unconscionability can be asserted in a class action. E.g. Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 408 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1981).
By contrast, procedural unconscionability "speaks to the individualized circumstances surrounding each contracting party at the time the contract was entered into." Id. at 868. The manner in which a particular contracting party's age, education, intelligence, financial position, business experience, etc. affects that party's bargaining position, and whether such factors permit the party to have a "meaningful choice," vary from individual to individual.
The residents urge on appeal that because of the unique problems facing many similarly situated mobile home residents, a class action is appropriate to assert both substantive and procedural unconscionability. As in this case, many residents own their mobile homes but rent lots from park owners. In contrast to other living arrangements (such as most apartment rentals), if lot rents are raised, mobile home residents lack the option of simply refusing to renew their lease and moving out. Instead, residents must either accept the rent increases, sell their mobile homes, or attempt to move the mobile homes to other sites. The residents in this case conclude that this situation leaves each of them with an "absence of meaningful choice" which is sufficiently similar that the trial court correctly permitted them to assert procedural unconscionability in their class action.
We reject the residents' contentions. It may be true that each resident was faced with similar lot rental increases and left with similar choices. However, procedural unconscionability involves not external factors faced by an individual, such as an onerous contract term or increased rent, but rather the particular effect each external factor has on each individual and how the individual reacts to such factors. We find, therefore, that because of the basic differences between people, the requirements for procedural unconscionability are too personal, individualized, and subjective to be properly asserted in a class action. The trial court erred in permitting the residents to do so in this case.
This conclusion is supported by this court's opinion in K. D. Lewis Enterprises Corp. v. Smith, 445 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In that case, tenants brought a counterclaim alleging their landlord did not maintain their apartments and unfairly increased the amount of their rent. This court held that the trial court correctly refused to permit the tenants to appear as representatives of a class of all the tenants in the apartment complex. We reasoned that "[w]hile each tenant may have been affected by the omissions or non-compliance of the landlord, the extent, nature, and effect of such omissions and non-compliance would unquestionably vary from apartment to apartment and from tenant to tenant." Id. at 1034. See also Garrett v. Janiewski, 480 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1986) (); State v. De Anza, 416 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Arscott
...cert. denied, 493 U.S. 964, 110 S.Ct. 405, 107 L.Ed.2d 371 (1989); Jones v. Thomas, 541 So.2d 112 (Fla.1989), quashing 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). GRIFFIN, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. ON MOTION TO VACATE OPINION AND TO DISMISS GRIFFIN, Judge. Appellant's "Motion to Vacate Op......
-
Lanca Homeowners, Inc. v. Lantana Cascade of Palm Beach, Ltd.
...courts have indicated that unconscionability claims are too individualized for class action proceedings. See generally Thomas v. Jones, 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Garrett v. Janiewski, 480 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1986); State v. DeAnza, 416......
-
Singer Island Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Casetta, Ltd., 87-1074
...Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 408 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1981); Thomas v. Jones, 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Here, there was a meeting of the minds between sophisticated parties of at least equal bargaining power. Both were represented......
-
Harpster v. J.T.A., Inc.
...action and rendered judgment in favor of residents. The district court, on rehearing, reversed, citing its decision in Thomas v. Jones, 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), wherein it ruled that unconscionability claims are too individualized for presentation in the class action format. Based......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...2. Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan , 558 So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied , 570 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1990). 3. Thomas v. Jones , 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), reversed on other grounds , 541 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1989). 4. State v. De Anza Corp. , 416 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), p......
-
The unclear scope of unconscionability in FDUTPA.
...(Fla. 1981); Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884, 889 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1982), rev. den., 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1983); Thomas v. Jones, 524 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1988); Fotomat Corp. of Florida v. Chada, 464 So. 2d 626, 628 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1985); Beeman v. Island Breakers, 577 So......