Coral Wood Page, Inc. v. Gre Coral Wood, Lp
71 So. 3d 251
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- GRE Coral Wood, LP owns the shopping center; Coral Wood Page, Inc. and Tina and Derek Woods leased premises for a restaurant/bar and personally guaranteed the lease.
- GRE sued for eviction and damages, including unpaid and accelerated rent; Woodses answered with affirmative defenses alleging breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and a set-off for a tenant improvement allowance.
- Tenants alleged GRE used off-duty police for security, harassing customers by parking marked police vehicles and conducting visual inspections in a menacing fashion, and GRE failed to remedy the situation.
- GRE moved for summary judgment on damages; its supporting affidavit did not address the tenants’ affirmative defenses.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment, ruling that no evidence supported defenses; on appeal, the court reversed due to improper burden shifting and unresolved defenses.
- The panel held the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment can support damages even without eviction, and GRE is liable for acts of security hired by the landlord; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper when affirmative defenses remained unresolved | Woods asserts GRE failed to address defenses; no genuine issues exist. | GRE contends undisputed facts support damages and defense issues are immaterial. | Not proper; defenses unresolved, burden not shifted |
| Whether breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment supports damages without eviction | Woods may recover for quiet enjoyment breach even if possession remains. | Quiet enjoyment requires eviction or is limited; no damages without eviction. | Damages may be recovered for quiet enjoyment breach without eviction |
| Whether the covenant of quiet enjoyment encompassed activities in common areas patrolled by GRE's security | Security harassment in common areas breached quiet enjoyment. | Security actions outside leased premises do not breach covenant. | Covenant extends to common-area security conduct affecting tenants |
| Whether GRE is responsible for actions of security personnel it hired | Landlord liable for authorized actions causing disruption. | No liability for third-party agents beyond fault. | Landlord liable for acts authorized or facilitated by it that disrupt quiet enjoyment |
Key Cases Cited
- Carner v. Shapiro, 106 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (implied covenant breached by landlord actions; damages feasible)
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla.1951) (implied covenant of peaceable and quiet enjoyment exists absent contrary covenants)
- Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966) (summary judgment standard requires no genuine issues of material fact)
- Morroni v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 903 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (burden of proof does not shift to movant until movant meets its burden)
- Deutsch v. Global Fin. Servs., LLC, 976 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (affidavits required to rebut defenses in summary judgment)
- Orr v. Hammons, 682 So.2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (affirmative defenses must be proven; movant bears burden first)
- Winchester v. O'Brien, 164 N.E. 807 (Mass. 1929) (authorizes acts that disrupt peaceful enjoyment when landlord approves)