Would you have this case, in which renters who had built illegal structures argued (with initial success) that the landlord had to eat the code enforcement violations they created and couldn't tear down their iillegal structures or terminate their leases.
Recreational vehicle parks get more pads per acre than traditional subdivisions would (at least they used to in the Keys). A few parks in the Keys had deals where folks could basically rent the pads year to year with renewal rights - originally folks up further north used them as weekend (if from Miaim-Palm Beach) or winter (if from snowy climes) places to park their campers. Over time folks just moved in big motor homes and started building porches, garages, and Tiki huts (ONLY in the Keys) etc., on them. Through the late 70's and early 80's this seemed like a pretty efficient way for the non-rich to enjoy a winter home in the Keys.
Bring in two big changes: economics - the park gets really valuable as development land if only the new owners can get rid of all these campers; and growth management - eventually Monroe County realizes it has a zoning problem and starts code enforcement actions against the park for the unlawful buildings.
So the new park owner tries to terminate the year-to-year leases on renewal for creating violations and the offending renters take them to court, arguing that because the old owner turned a blind eye, the new owner was basically estopped from enforcing the building code against them, even if the park owner was being fined.
What's amazing to me is that the case ends up turning not on the clear question of whether a landlord always has the right to demand that tenants not violate zoning regulations, but instead on waiver and estoppel arguments construing the renewal rights to the leases and the right to require compliance with the County codes via a requirement to follow Park rules. The Court ends up finding that the landlord could force them to leave based on non-compliance with the Zoning Code, but you really wonder why it would ever have to go that far :)
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
The Second District Court, in Pierce v. Pierce, affirmed a finding of contempt and rejected an argument that the lower tribunal should have...
-
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Tullier v. Tullier , affirming the lower court’s modification of timesharing for the Form...
-
Our friend Glenn continues to pretend he's a lawyer, except now he's a top-notch US Attorney taking pot shots at the prosecutorial...
-
Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today. First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle. Just ...
-
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Zambuto v. Zambuto , reversing the lower court’s ruling on two grounds. The District...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét