EMMETT C. SIMPSON, EVELYN R. SIMPSON AND LINDA SIMPSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENNIE FILLICHIO AND MINNIE FILLICHIO, AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
In a condemnation proceeding, the court resolved a dispute over apportionment of a compensation award between property owners and long-term lessees. The court held that the plain language of the lease's condemnation clause entitled the owners to the portion of the award for land taken, valued unencumbered by the lease, rather than allowing lessees to share proportionately based on their leasehold interests.
The court held that the plain language of the condemnation clause entitled the owners to the portion of the award for land taken valued unencumbered by the lease. The lease's failure to explicitly state that land would be valued as encumbered by the lease means the owners receive compensation based on the unencumbered land value, and the lessees do not have a proportionate share based on leasehold interests.
[1] A condemnation clause in a lease can contractually alter the default rule that tenants are entitled to share proportionately in the award for the land value of their leas…
[2] A lease provision granting the owner the "portion of the award made for the land taken" does not inherently imply that the land should be valued as encumbered by the leas…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 term "property" in the agreement was not restricted or narrowed by qualifying words, such as, "the landlord's interest in the property" or "the fee as burdened by the lease." We feel that to construe the agreement as though it contained such restrictive or narrowed language would amount to a judicial rewriting of the agreement which it is not our province to do.”
Establishes the court's plain language interpretation approach and refusal to add restrictive language not present in the contract
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProperty owners Simpson and lessees Fillichio held interests in land that was condemned by the State of Florida Department of Transportation. The leas…
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 Apportionment Of Condemnation Award cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
After a final judgment of condemnation, a dispute arose over the apportionment of the award among the owners/lessors and the long-term lessees. The owners claimed, under the condemnation clause of the lease, that they were entitled to that “portion of the award made for the land taken” unencumbered by the lease. The lessees argue that the value of the land should be subject to the lease. The trial court agreed with the latter interpretation. We reverse.
Both sides acknowledge that if there is no governing condemnation clause in the lease, the tenants in possession are entitled to share proportionately in the award for the land value of their leasehold interests taken. Dama v. Record Bar, Inc., 512 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987). However, the parties can contract to do otherwise. Elmore v. Broward County, 507 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
The condemnation clause in this particular lease entitles the owners to receive the “portion of the award made for the land taken.” It does not provide that any such land would be valued as encumbered by the lease. The terms of the lease, failing to so provide, leads us to approve of and adopt the Second District’s reasoning in Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc. v. Thompson, 458 So. 2d 893 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985)
, wherein it was said:
The term “property” in the agreement was not restricted or narrowed by qualifying words, such as, “the landlord’s interest in the property” or “the fee as burdened by the lease.” We feel that to construe the agreement as though it contained such restrictive or narrowed language would amount to a judicial rewriting of the agreement which it is not our province to do. Id. at 894.
Though the facts are not on all fours, we acknowledge that our conclusion, based on Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, is apparently in conflict with an earlier opinion out of the Third District entitled Contos v. Lipsky, 433 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). We are also not insensitive to the cogent argument advanced by the lessees that in eminent domain proceedings, the lessors would receive a windfall if compensated as if the land were unencumbered because the lessors would have obviously only been able to sell the land at encumbered values if a third party purchaser rather than a condemning authority had been the buyer. Notwithstanding, we believe the condemnation clause in this particular lease controls as we have already discussed, and the lessees are not entitled to be rescued from what may well have been a bad bargain. Fotomat Corporation of Florida v. Chanda, 464 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended order on apportionment, in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur. . See also Lassiter v. Kaufman, 15 F.L.W. D419 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 14, 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K-Mart Corp. v. State, 636 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…s also well established that in the absence of an agreement between a landlord/owner and a tenant in possession, the tenant is entitled to share proportionately in the condemnation award for the value of its leasehold interest. Simpson v. Fillichio, 560 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 574 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1990). However, the parties have a right to provide in their lease agreement the specific manner in which a condemnation award is to be apportioned between them. Elmore v. Broward County, 507 So.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987)
- Contos v. Evalyn Lipsky, 433 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Fotomat Corp. OF Fla. v. Chanda, 464 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Madden v. State, 512 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Elmore v. Broward Cnty., 507 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Palm Pavilion OF Clearwater, Inc. v. Thompson, 458 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)