Tixe Designs, Inc. v. Green Ice, Inc.
207 So. 3d 348
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Landlord (Tixe Designs, Inc.) owns commercial property leased in part to Tenant (Green Ice, Inc.) for a men’s clothing business; an adjacent unit was leased to a gym.
- Tenant sued Landlord alleging breach of contract, constructive eviction, and fraud in the inducement due to excessive noise from the neighboring gym interfering with its business.
- Tenant moved to deposit its rent payments into the court registry pending litigation, stating the deposit was voluntary and a ‘‘sign of good faith,’’ despite alleging constructive eviction.
- The trial court granted the Tenant’s motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.600, allowing the voluntary deposit of disputed rent into the court registry.
- Landlord appealed the non-final order, arguing the court should not have allowed deposit of funds potentially recoverable as money damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by permitting Tenant to deposit rent into court registry under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.600 | Tenant: Deposit is voluntary, funds are subject of litigation because Tenant seeks rent abatement and lease rescission; rule 1.600 permits holding disputed sums | Landlord: Rent is merely money damages in an action at law; courts cannot order deposit of contested funds or restrain use of unrestricted assets | Court: Affirmed — where entitlement to the funds is contested, trial court has broad discretion under rule 1.600 to accept voluntary deposits |
Key Cases Cited
- First States Investors 3300, LLC v. Pheil, 52 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (trial court has broad discretion under Rule 1.600; interpretation of court rule reviewed de novo)
- Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condo., Inc., 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1979) (recognizes trial judges may use equitable deposit plans; Rule 1.600 permissive)
- Century Vill., Inc. v. Wellington, E, F, K, L, H, J, M, & G, Condo. Ass’n, 361 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1978) (trial judges free to use Rule 1.600 to hold rent payments during litigation)
- Fiscal Operations, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 808 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Rule 1.600 is permissive and inapplicable where party is unwillingly compelled to escrow funds; analysis framed as whether parties contest entitlement)
- Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (distinguishable — holds a court may not order deposit of amount in controversy in an action at law when deposit is compelled)