Charbonier Food Services, LLC v. 121 Alhambra Tower, LLC, 206 So. 3d 755

Charbonier Food Services leased restaurant space from 121 Alhambra Tower, LLC under a ten-year commercial lease beginning 2011; paragraph 51 set the Base Rent as the greater of a fixed schedule or a percentage of gross sales with a special adjustment beginning January 2015.
From 2011–2014 Charbonier paid all rent. In October 2015 Alhambra began charging an extra $10,000/month, asserting paragraph 51 authorized adding an "Additional Fixed Base Rent" beginning 2015.
Charbonier disputed that interpretation and tendered a lower payment for September 2015; Alhambra served a seven-day pay-or-quit notice and later sued for eviction and damages while also moving to compel Charbonier to deposit disputed rents into the court registry under section 83.232.
The trial court agreed with Alhambra’s reading, ordered Charbonier to deposit one-half of the disputed rent and sales tax into the court registry and later entered a final judgment of eviction after Charbonier did not deposit the funds.
Charbonier appealed, challenging the trial court’s contractual interpretation and the order requiring registry deposits; the appellate court retained jurisdiction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(c)(ii).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Charbonier)	Defendant's Argument (Alhambra)	Held
Whether paragraph 51 is plain or ambiguous and how the Base Rent adjustment beginning 2015 should be read	Paragraph 51 is ambiguous; Charbonier contends the lease does not authorize the extra $10,000/month as Alhambra charges	The lease unambiguously authorizes adding the additional fixed amount beginning Jan 2015, and thus higher rent is due	The court held the lease language is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation; extrinsic evidence is required to determine parties’ intent
Whether the trial court properly ordered Charbonier to deposit disputed rents into the court registry and whether eviction judgment should stand	Because the lease is ambiguous and Charbonier disputed the rent in good faith, it should not have been compelled to deposit disputed sums and should not have been summarily evicted	Alhambra argued the rent demand was proper and registry deposit was warranted under section 83.232	The appellate court reversed the registry-deposit order and the eviction judgment, remanding for consideration of extrinsic evidence to ascertain intent and correct rent obligations

Merlot Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shalev, 840 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015) (unambiguous contracts enforced according to plain language)
Washington Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013) (when ambiguous, court must ascertain parties’ intent)
Crawford v. Barker, 64 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 2011) (plain meaning of contract controls; confine interpretation to four corners when unambiguous)
Richter v. Richter, 666 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (same principle regarding contract plain meaning)
Real Estate Value Co., Inc. v. Carnival Corp., 92 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (contract ambiguous if reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation)
Pan Am. W., Ltd. v. Cardinal Commercial Dev., LLC, 50 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (definition of ambiguity in contracts)
Friedman v. Virginia Metal Prods. Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1952) (extrinsic evidence may be used to explain or clarify an ambiguity)
Se. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lehrman, 443 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (use of extrinsic evidence to determine parties’ intent when contract ambiguous)