Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...of Miami Beach does not have the power to enact a rent control ordinance, that the *803 Ordinance was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority by the City Council, and that the Ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically Sections 83.03, 83.04 and 83.20, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...vesting total power in a single individual without controls or restraint, even in an emergency." As to the third issue, we agree with the finding of the trial court that this rent control ordinance does conflict with Florida Statutes Sections 83.03, 83.04, 83.06 and 83.20, F.S.A....

...City of Wilton Manors v. Starling, 121 So.2d 172 (Fla.App. 1960), City of Coral Gables v. Seiferth, 87 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1956). Section 16 A.5 D provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person to remove a housing unit from the market if the same will result in eviction." F.S. 83.04, F.S.A. provides a tenancy at will may be terminated by either party upon giving of specified notice. F.S. 83.04, F.S.A....

...As stated in 20 Fla.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 22: "A tenancy at sufferance arises where a person who came rightfully into possession continues possession after his right thereto has terminated. . . . A tenant at sufferance has merely a naked possession and no appreciable estate in the land. . . . " Section 83.04, Florida Statutes, provides that a tenant who holds over after expiration of his term without any renewal shall be construed to be a tenant at sufferance....

measure of damages, see cases under footnote 77 of § 83. [4] See footnote 1, supra.

1230-31; cf. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83(4) ("An adjudicative determination of an issue by

...ase agreement. Mrs. Hamilton argues that the Hamiltons remained in the property under an oral lease agreement between her late husband (but not her) and Mr. Tanner, such that she is not liable for postexpiration rents and taxes. Mr. Tanner relies on section 83.04, Florida Statutes, [4] which reads: Holding over after term, tenancy at sufferance, etc....

...at will under the provisions of this law. Mr. Tanner argues that whatever the postexpiration oral arrangement that existed between the parties may have entailed, there was no written renewal of the lease agreement. Therefore, he argues, pursuant to section 83.04, the postexpiration arrangement between the parties was a tenancy at sufferance....

...Tanner subsequent to [the expiration of the lease agreement]. The trial court's findings raise two issues: whether there actually was an oral lease between Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Tanner and, if so, whether the existence of an oral lease, as opposed to a written instrument, took the tenancy out of section 83.04 such that Mrs....

...Hamilton was not a party to this oral agreement and, therefore, has no legal obligation under the agreement is fully supported by Mr. Tanner's testimony. Mr. Tanner's testimony that he was operating under an oral lease with Mr. Hamilton alone forecloses his claim that the tenancy was a holdover under section 83.04 such that Mrs....

...[2] This pleading was styled Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaim. [3] Documentary evidence received by the court indicates that Mr. Tanner consistently applied rent checks received to the current month, not to past months for which rent had not been paid. [4] The text of section 83.04 is the same for all years relevant to this case....

...73, 11 N.E.2d 706; and Peterson v. McNeely, 125 Pa.Super. 55, 189 A. 765. See also annotations at 156 A.L.R. 1310, 1316, and 19 A.L.R. 1408. Certainly the provisions here under consideration were "applicable to the new tenancy" unless the rule is changed by F.S.A. § 83.04, which provides in part that a hold-over tenancy after a written lease without written renewal shall be a tenancy at sufferance, "but if such holding over be continued with the written consent of the lessor then such tenancy shall become a tenancy at will under the provisions of this law." (Italics added.) F.S.A. § 83.04 was originally enacted as Sec....

...Ultimately, however, this section was held unconstitutional, because not germane to the title of the original act, in McCord v. Connor, 132 Fla. 56, 180 So. 519, and the opinion in that case specifically declared Sec. 1 of the 1905 act to be in full force and effect. The constitutionality of the 1931 amendment to F.S.A. § 83.04, supra, is not raised, and we express no opinion concerning it....

...The above history is included as prefatory to the observation that most if not all of the construction heretofore given in Florida to the term "tenancy at sufferance" has been under the statute subsequently held unconstitutional, and so far as we are informed Sec. 83.04 has never before been construed. Statutes such as Sec. 83.04, rendering a hold-over tenancy one at sufferance are not uncommon....

...229, 230, and cases cited. The best reasoned and most helpful case we have found upon the subject is Hampton v. Mott Motors, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A.2d 247. In that case the court had before it a section of the District of Columbia Code which was much stronger than F.S.A. § 83.04, supra, providing unequivocally, inter alia, that all hold-over tenancies "shall be deemed estates by sufferance"....

...of the original lease applicable to the new situation." 32 A.2d 247, 248. By reducing a hold-over tenancy to one at sufferance, where in the absence of statute it might be a tenancy at will or for years, the legislature could not, in enacting F.S.A. § 83.04, have intended the result reached by the court below in the instant case....

...hat they would require the theater to be kept open six days a week "in accordance with the terms of the lease between you and the Town of Groveland," and that, otherwise, they would cancel the lease. This contention cannot be sustained. Our statute, Section 83.04, Fla....

...ptance of rent shall not be construed to be a renewal of the said term * * *." This court held in Brown v. Markham, 56 Fla. 202, 48 So. 39, 42, that a holding over under a written lease containing an option to renew is "subject to the provisions of" Section 83.04, supra, and that, in the absence of an instrument of writing extending the lease, the lessee was a tenant at sufferance. At most, the Painters were tenants at will, under the provisions of Section 83.04, supra, that "if such holding over be continued with the written consent of the lessor then such tenancy shall become a tenancy at will under the provisions of this law." And even if the allegation that the Town Council recognized and a...

...ate of surrender. Under Florida law, when a tenancy created by a written instrument, the term of which is limited, has expired and the tenant holds over in the possession of the premises, such holding over is construed to be a tenancy at sufferance. Section 83.04, Florida Statutes 1971, F.S.A....

...When the landlord chooses to demand double rent, the tenant's continued holdover constitutes an implied agreement to pay the rent demanded. David Properties, 151 So.2d at 338. Absent such a demand, or other affirmative action on the part of the landlord, the tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance at the original rent. See § 83.04, Fla....

...Meli Investment Corporation (landlord) appeals the trial court's order which applied a risk multiplier to an award of attorneys fees to O.R. and his wife (tenants). Landlord brought suit against tenants as holdover tenants, § 83.58, Fla. Stat. (1991), seeking damages pursuant to section 83.04, Florida Statutes (1991)....

a month-to-month tenancy is created); see also § 83.04, Fla. Stat. (2008) (if a written lease has expired

...But a *221 Florida statute has provided in essentially the same terms since 1905 that "the mere payment or acceptance of rent shall not be construed to be a renewal of the said term" of a tenant holding over beyond the term of a written lease. Sec. 83.04, F.S....

...Painter v. Town of Groveland, 79 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1955); see also Brown v. Markham, 56 Fla. 202, 48 So. 39 (1909). The factual issues in this case were submitted to a jury by stipulation of the parties. The jury, which was properly charged on the effect of § 83.04, F.S., found from all the circumstances that the Ledfords waived the lease requirement for timely written notice to renew, that a new three-year term began October 1, 1970, and therefore that the Skinners' option to purchase survived to be exercised in June 1973....

...the lessors had not been harmed or damaged by the lessees' delay in giving the written notice... ." See also L'Engle v. Overstreet, 64 Fla. 339, 60 So. 120 (1912); Comment, 5 U.Fla.L.Rev. 338 (1952). In Painter, supra, 79 So.2d at 767, the Court recognized that the effect of § 83.04, F.S., might be varied on equitable grounds....

...but as periodic payments of the purchase price. While the lease thus entitled the Skinners to buy the Ledfords' land for a small price paid in time without interest, we cannot relieve the Ledfords of the bargain. To hold in these circumstances that § 83.04, F.S., transformed the Skinners' payments after September 1970 into mere rentals of a tenant at sufferance or at will, we should have to disregard entirely the conversation between T.S....

...The reasoning underlying this doctrine is fully set forth in the authorities cited." Appellee argues that appellants, upon holding over after expiration of their written leases with only an oral agreement and no written authority, were tenants at sufferance and have no cause of action, because of § 83.04, Fla....

...[1] That statute provides that holding over after a period of tenancy under a written lease, "without renewing the said lease by some further instrument of writing" will result in a tenancy at sufferance, and that payment or acceptance of rent will not be construed to be a renewal of the term. Without new written leases § 83.04, Fla....

...PEARSON, J., dissents. PEARSON, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from both the opinion and the conclusion reached by the court in this case. The complaint on its face manifests that the appellants are holdover tenants, coming within the provisions of § 83.04 Fla....

...ver in possession of a tenant, together with the payment of rent, may be construed as part performance, in order to take the agreement for a new lease out of the statute of frauds. [1] In view of the clearly expressed legislative intent contained in § 83.04, it would appear that here the part performance is equally susceptible to the interpretation that it was pursuant to the Florida statute referred to....

six (6) years at rental of $70.00 per month.” Section 83.04, F.S.A., provides, in effect, that if the tenant

Statutes § 83.01 et seq. (1979). Florida Statute § 83.04 (1979) sets forth the proper procedure which governs

validly exercised. Appellant’s total reliance on Section 83.04 Florida Statutes (1975), is not justified in

then converted into a month-to-month tenancy. See § 83.04, Fla. Stat. (2020). 3 Landlord alleges

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 83.04, Fla.Stat. (1985).

November 1, 1964 as a tenancy at sufferance under § 83.04, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. rather than a tenancy at will

at will, per the parties’ oral agreement. See § 83.04, Fla. Stat. (2016) (“When any tenancy created by

...1980). In essence, the Bank is a trespasser, or, at best a tenant at sufferance. Executive Square Office Building v. O'Connor, 19 B.R. 143, 147 (Bkrtcy.N.D. FL 1981); Leaders International Jewelry v. Board, 183 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1966); F.S. 83.04....

absence of a showing of special circumstances, § 83.04 applied to Counts I and II regarding the alleged