Perez v. Webb Realty Consultants, Inc., Belmont at Ryals Chase Condominium Association, Inc., 2D2023-0872

Geraldo Perez was a tenant in a unit owned by Belmont and managed by Webb Realty Consultants.
The lease specified that Belmont was responsible for maintenance and repairs, particularly to flooring; tenants could not make repairs without written consent.
Over time, floor tiles at the unit’s sole entrance became loose, and Perez’s wife notified both Belmont and Webb of the dangerous condition on two occasions.
Perez slipped and fell on the loose tiles, sustaining injuries and subsequently sued for negligent failure to maintain the property.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Belmont and Webb, finding no continuing duty to repair because the hazard was open and obvious to Perez.
Perez appealed, contending the trial court misapplied Florida law regarding landlords’ postpossession duties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether knowledge of an open and obvious dangerous condition absolves a landlord’s duty to repair after notice	Perez argued landlord’s duty continues after tenant provides notice, regardless of tenant’s awareness of the hazard	Belmont and Webb argued that open and obvious hazards known to the tenant eliminate the landlord’s repair duty	Court held the duty remains after notice, reversing summary judgment
Applicability of case law restricting duty to non-obvious or inherently dangerous conditions	Limiting landlord's duty to non-obvious/inherently dangerous defects only applies to prepossession, not postpossession	Cited Youngblood and Menendez cases as limiting duty to non-obvious/inherently dangerous conditions after tenant occupancy	Court found these cases do not govern postpossession duty; Mansur governs, duty applies after notice
Scope of landlord’s repair duty under lease agreement	Lease made landlord solely responsible for floors; Perez could not repair tiles without consent	Not directly addressed in argument; relied on general legal principle of open/obvious	Court noted lease reinforced landlord’s exclusive repair duty
Whether summary judgment standard was properly applied	Not contested that facts were undisputed; focused on interpretation of legal standard	Contended legal standard warranted summary judgment	Legal standard misapplied; summary judgment reversed and remanded

Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1981) (A landlord has a continuing postpossession duty to repair dangerous defects upon receiving notice from tenant, unless waived)
Youngblood v. Pasadena at Pembroke Lakes South, Ltd., 882 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (Held open and obvious condition does not trigger repair duty without tenant’s notice, but court here found it unpersuasive for postpossession duty)
Menendez v. The Palms West Condominium Ass'n, 736 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (Held prepossession duty to repair limited to non-obvious/inherently dangerous defects; not applicable to postpossession duty here)