Supreme Court of Florida
Civil Court of Record, Dade Cty. v. State
The Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida and Louis Berger, Jennie Berger, Edward White, Mildred…
159 Fla. 716 · 32 So. 2d 602
Decided November 21, 1947
No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.
Summary
The court held that the Civil Court of Record had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer proceedings concerning whether the tenant's lease had been terminated and whether the landlords were entitled to possession. Because the trial court was competent to adjudicate those issues, prohibition was improper and the judgment issuing the writ was reversed.
Holdings
- Whether the Civil Court of Record had subject-matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer proceedings.. The Civil Court of Record had jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties and was competent to determine whether the tenant's rights under the lease had ended and whether the landlords were entitled to possession; therefore, issuance of the peremptory writ of prohibition was error. *717-*718
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
The appellees were defendants in unlawful detainer proceedings in the Civil Court of Record and procured a preparatory writ of prohibition against the plaintiffs-landlord and said court, which judgment in prohibition was appealed.
The relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellants, Berger, et al., as landlord, and Ben Left, as tenant, and the landlord brought the unlawful detainer proceedings for the recovery of the leased premises upon the grounds that the tenant had violated a covenant of the lease, as follows:
“SIXTH: To use the said premises in pursuance with all laws and ordinances now or hereafter applicable and not to suffer or permit the same to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose.”
The landlord claimed that the lease had been terminated by reason of a notice of election given to that effect, predi *717 cated upon said Paragraph Six (supra.) and by reason of the following covenant of said lease, to-wit:
“SEVENTH: That if the Lessees shall not pay any sums required by the terms hereof to be paid by the Lessees, unto the Lessors, at the time and in the manner stated, or shall fail to keep and perform any other condition, stipulation or agreement herein contained, on the part of the lessees to be kept and performed, or if the Lessees shall be adjudged voluntary or involuntary bankrupt, or make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or should there be appointed a receiver for or against the Lessees to take charge of the premises, either in the State Court or in the Federal Court, then, in any of such events, the Lessors may, at their option, terminate and end this lease and re-enter without the necessity for giving notice or taking legal proceedings to accomplish such re-entry upon the property, whereupon the term hereby granted, and, at the Lessors’ option, all right, title and interest under it shall end and the Lessees shall become tenants at sufferance or the said Lessors may take possession of the premises and rent the same for the account of the Lessees, the exercise of any of which options herein contained shall not be deemed the exclusive Lessors’ remedy. The parties intend and specifically agree that no Trustee, Receiver or other representative in insolvency proceedings of the Lessees shall have the power to hold the premises pursuant hereto or to assign, sell, or otherwise dispose of this lease. The parties intend, however, that the Lessees shall not be deemed in default as to the non-payment of rent until the rent shall have been past due ten (10) days or where the default consists in other than the non-payment of rent, until the Lessors shall have given the Lessees written notice, specifying the nature of such default and unless the Lessees shall not have remedied the said default or shall not have taken steps reasonably to cure the said default within ten (10) days after the receipt of such notice.” (Italics ours).
Whether or not the rights of the appellee, as tenant under said lease, have come to an end, and whether or not the appellants-landlords are entitled to prevail in said unlawful detainer proceedings is a matter which the Civil Court of Record is competent to adjudicate. The civil court has jurisdiction *718 of the subject matter and the parties, and it was error to issue the peremptory writ of prohibition.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- McCullagh v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company342 Mich. 244 (1955)
- P.h. Investment, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Cathy Oliver, Defendant and Petitioner170 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1991)
- Jacob M. Atwood v. Stephen D. and Kristie L. Owens142 N.H. 396 (1997)
- Nadene R. Carter, Norma R. Bennett, Laree Larson, Melvin S. Roberts, Beneficiaries of the Norman H. Roberts Family…146 Idaho 842 (2009)
- Thomas C. S. Lau and Henry Choy Lau, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Cayetano Bautista, Defendants-Appellants61 Haw. 144 (1979)