ROSA BROS., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID R. SCHLOSSMAN, BANNER BEEF COMPANY, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rosa Bros., Inc. appealed a declaratory judgment determining the ownership rights of two lessees upon exercising an option to purchase a leased property. The trial court held that the parties became tenants in common on a 44/56 basis, reflecting their existing expense-sharing arrangement, rather than the 50/50 basis Rosa Bros. argued for.
The trial court correctly determined that the parties became tenants in common on a 44/56 basis, consistent with their pre-existing arrangement for sharing expenses and occupancy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that this apportionment reasonably reflected the parties' intent based on their established practice.
[1] A trial court's determination of the parties' intent regarding the apportionment of leased premises upon exercise of an option to purchase, based on conflicting evidence,…
[2] When interpreting the intent of parties to a lease agreement concerning an option to purchase, a court may consider the historical basis upon which the parties shared exp…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court resolved such conflicts and concluded, we believe reasonably, that the parties intended to share the leased premises upon exercising the option to purchase as tenants in common on the same basis that they had previously shared the rent, assessed real estate taxes, insurance coverage, operating and maintenance expenses and rental space upon the leased premises since the inception of the lease in June 1971, to wit: on a 44/56 basis.”
Establishes the court's rationale for affirming the 44/56 apportionment based on consistency with prior cost-sharing arrangements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa Bros., Inc. and Banner Beef Company, Inc. were lessees of a property since June 1971. The lessees shared rent, real estate taxes, insurance, oper…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a declaratory judgment action after a non-jury trial in which the trial court declared the rights of the parties with respect to an option to purchase clause in a lease agreement. Specifically, the trial court concluded from the evidence that the plaintiff lessee Rosa Bros., Inc. and the defendant lessee Banner Beef Co. upon exercise of an option to purchase clause in the lease agreement became tenants in common on a respective 44/56 basis. The plaintiff Rosa Bros., Inc. appeals contending that the apportionment of the premises between the parties upon exercise of the option to purchase should have been on a 50/50 basis. We disagree and affirm.
Our review of the final judgment, when compared against the extensive evidence in this record and the briefs of the parties, reveals a reasonable basis for the ruling reached by the trial court. The evidence is admittedly in conflict and is susceptible of contradictory inferences, but the trial court resolved such conflicts and concluded, we believe reasonably, that the parties intended to share the leased premises upon exercising the option to purchase as tenants in common on the same basis that they had previously shared the rent, assessed real estate taxes, insurance coverage, operating and maintenance expenses and rental space upon the leased premises since the inception of the lease in June 1971, to wit: on a 44/56 basis. Indeed, it would make little sense for the parties to take the property on a 50/50 basis when each occupied and ran established businesses on the premises on a 44/56 basis as indicated above.
Although an argument can, and has been ably made by the plaintiff, that the evidence is susceptible of a contrary reasonable inference as to the parties’ intent, we cannot say, as urged by the plaintiff, that such is the only reasonable inference from the evidence. As such, it is not our function to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal, and, under the controlling law, we have a duty to affirm the judgment appealed from. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So. 2d 297 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 281 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1st DCA 1973); Posner v. Flink, 167 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).
Affirmed.
BARKDULL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burnett Roth v. Rosa Bros., Inc., 513 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ambiguous option-to-purchase provision of the subject lease — that the 44% interest in the aforesaid purchased premises which the plaintiff received fully comported with the intent of the parties to the subject lease. Rosa Bros., Inc. v. Schlossman, 373 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). This being so, it could not possibly constitute legal malpractice for plaintiff’s counsel to advise the plaintiff, as he did, to sign a lease which, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the intent of the parties to the…
-
Am. Linens, Inc. v. Venmall Int'l Grp., 645 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…also supports the defendant/tenant’s obligation to pay $325 in taxes for July 1992, which payment was also not made. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. .1976); Duff v. Marty, 632 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Rosa Bros. Inc. v. Schlossman, 373 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Second, we reject the defendant/tenant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to award damages and attorney’s fees under its civil theft claim. The subject of the civil theft claim was a sign which was originall…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Posner v. Flink, 167 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Anibel K. Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 281 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)