Young v. Cobbs
| Decision Date | 26 October 1955 |
| Parties | Emmett YOUNG, Appellant, v. Henry COBBS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Allison, Miami, for appellant.
Broad & Cassel, Lewis Horwitz and L. J. Cushman, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Plaintiff sued defendant to reover his damages sustained by reason of defendants's unlawfully evicting him from store space leased by him from defendant. The defendant's answer was a simple denial of the allegations of the complaint. At the close of plaintiff's case, which was heard by the trial judge without a jury, the defendant orally moved for a dismissal of the cause on the ground that no damages had been shown. The motion was granted and a final order of dismissal was thereafter entered by the trial judge for the reason, as stated therein, that 'the court found as a matter of law that said plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict of finding in his favor * * *'. It is this order which we review on this appeal.
Plaintiff was one of some sixty-odd merchants who rented small areas of space in a building constructed by defendant as a shopping and service center, known as 'Cobb's Country Store.' Plaintiff operated a bearuty salon in the 'selling space' leased by him. For some reason not shown by the record, 'Cobb's Country Store' was not a successful venture, and the other tenants moved out, one by one, until finally only plaintiff was left. Plaintiff refused to move out, thus blocking a sale of the premises which defendant had made, and defendant resolved his problem by locking the doors of the main entrances to the building. Plaintiff's beauty salon business came to an abrupt end. It is not here denied that defendant's action amounted to an unlawful eviction of plaintiff, and the only questions with which we are here concerned relate to the damages recoverable by plaintiff for the eviction.
The trial judge was of the opinion that the only damages recoverable by plaintiff were those represented by 'the difference between the market value of the lease held and the rent that was payable under it.' He excluded all testimony respecting the profits that the plaintiff had made in the past at the location in Cobb's Country Store, as well as evidence of permanent improvements, such as plumbing and electrical work, made by him to adapt the 'selling space' to beauty parlor use. He also held that a deposit of $450 made by plaintiff to defendant at the inception of the lease, as security for the performance by plaintiff of the terms and conditions of the lease, was not recoverable by plaintiff.
As to the damages claimed by plaintiff for loss of profits, it is well settled that profits anticipated from a business which has not been established at the time possession of leased premises is wrongfully withheld from a lessee cannot be recovered by such lessee, since they are too remote and speculative. Harvey Corporation v. Universal Equipment Co., 158 Fla. 644, 29 So.2d 700; Id., Fla., 42 So.2d 577. But it is held by a majority of the courts that this rule does not apply to the breaking up of an established business by the eviction of the lessee, where such profits can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty. 32 Am.Jur. Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 265, page 249. See also Silberstein v. Laibovitz, Tex.Civ.App.1947, 200 S.W.2d 647; Pierce v. Nash, 126 Cal.App.2d 606, 272 P.2d 938; Snow v. Pulitzer, 142 N.Y. 263, 36 N.E. 1059; Wolf v. Megantz, 1915, 184 Mich. 452, 151 N.W. 622. This rule seems to us to comport with justice and reason. If a merchant has established a business and has a regular clientele of customers in a particular neighborhood, the continuance of business in that location may be of substantial value to him, even though the actual market value of the leasehold is considerably less than the rent contracted to be paid by him. To hold that no recovery can be had for the profits which he can prove he would have made at that location during the remainder of the unexpired term of his lease, would leave him entirely without remedy, though he was entirely without fault.
While we hold, then, that the trial judge applied the wrong rule of law in excluding the evidence as to future profits proffered by plaintiff, we think that no error was committed in this respect under the particular circumstances here present. A beauty shop operated in a shopping center where many other businesses are conducted is an entirely different 'kettle of fish' from one that is conducted in what one of the witnesses described as a 'ghost town.' Damages for loss of future profits are not allowed unless they can be measured with a fair degree of accuracy, and the testimony must be clear and free from taint of speculation or conjecture. Cf. Harvey Corporation v. Universal Equipment Co., 158 Fla. 644, 29 So.2d 700. Under the circumstances here, any calculation of profits would have to be based on pure guesswork, so the trial judge did not err in excluding the evidence in question.
As to the claim for permanent improvements, it has been held that expenditures for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck v. Mueller
...11 Mich. 542. Past profits may be shown if they reflect the operation of an established business. Landon v. Hill, supra; Young v. Cobbs, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 417; Walgreen Co. v. Walton, 1933, 16 Tenn.App. 213, 64 S.W.2d 44; Richker v. Georgandis, supra. See: McCormick, The Recovery of Damage......
-
Young v. Cobbs
...ROBERTS, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the trial court following the mandate of this court in Young v. Cobbs, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 417. Jurisdiction attaches under the policy declared by this court in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d This s......
-
Henry Morrison Flagler Museum v. Lee
...pursuant to a legal proceeding in the Palm Beach County Court (presumably under Chapter 85, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.). Cf. Young v. Cobbs, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 417. And although the plaintiff suggests that the action in the Palm Beach County Court involved only 'possession' and did not concer......
-
Mendoza v. Farrell
...to the civil court of record is hereby quashed. It is so ordered. 1 Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 so. 582, 583; Young v. Cobbs, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 417, 420; Wishman v. Foster and Curry Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 278, 279. See also 52 Am, Jur., Trespass, § 357 and 32......
-
Business & commercial cases
...that can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. Ardell v. Milner, 166 So.2d 714, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Young v. Cobbs, 83 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 1955). In addition, a tenant may be able to recover damages “for losses that are the natural, direct, and necessary consequences of ......
-
The wild and wooly world of inference and presumptions - when silence is deafening.
...the nature of an admission that the placing of the lease into evidence would have been of no value to the defendant. In Young v. Cobbs, 83 So. 2d 417, 420 (Fla. 1955), a tenant sought damages resulting from an eviction prior to expiration of the lease term. It was held that the tenant's fai......