DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LENMAR REALTY, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

SUN ELECTRIC WORKS, INC., a Florida corporation,

and RELIABLE POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellees.

Nos. 4D19-3467, 4D19-3468 and 4D19-3605

[April 14, 2021]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward L. Artau, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-

2017-CA-009665-XXXX-MB and 50-2017-CA-010348-XXXX-MB.

Ronald E. D’Anna of D’Anna Legal, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh, Rebecca Mercier Vargas, and Stephanie L. 

Serafin of Kreusler-Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West Palm Beach, and 

Edward F. Holodak of Edward F. Holodak, P.A., Plantation, for appellees.

GROSS, J.

Lenmar Realty, LLC, appeals from an amended final judgment entered 

in two consolidated lower-court cases involving a commercial dispute with 

its tenant, Sun Electric Works, Inc., and Reliable Power Systems, Inc., 

which also occupied the leased premises. We affirm the final judgment in 

all respects but one—we reverse that portion of the judgment denying 

Lenmar’s motion to obtain rental monies that Sun Electric deposited in 

the court registry during the pendency of the litigation.1

The Lease

Sun Electric was the tenant under a 2012 lease for two units of a 

commercial warehouse in Boca Raton. The lease prohibited assignment 

or subletting without the landlord’s written consent. 

1 We also affirm without comment in Lenmar’s appeal of the post-judgment order 

in case number 19-3605.
2

The original lease term was five years and three months, with an option 

to renew for three years. Lenmar became the landlord when it purchased 

the warehouse in 2015. Sun Electric submitted a notice of lease extension 

in 2016. 

The two units were originally set up as three bays, which could have 

been leased as three separate units. The front of the space had three 

different names over the bays, two of which are relevant to this appeal: 

Sun Electric and Reliable Power Systems. Sun Electric provides gardenvariety electrical services, while Reliable Power Systems supplies standby 

generators and installs liquid petroleum tanks and lines. Before the 

litigation began, rent checks to Lenmar listed both “Reliable Power 

Systems & Electrical Services” and “Sun Electric Works, Inc.” 

The Dispute

The dispute arose in July 2017. Lenmar’s property manager visited the 

site and discovered various issues at the property that he attributed to 

Reliable Power Systems. 

On July 14, 2017, Lenmar’s attorney sent a certified letter to Reliable 

Power Systems, advising it that: (1) Lenmar objected to its unauthorized 

occupancy of the leased units; (2) Lenmar considered the occupancy a 

tenancy at will; and (3) if it wished to remain on the premises, it would be 

required to sign a lease at the market rate, perform certain repairs, and 

take other corrective actions. 

Sun Electric’s attorney responded to Lenmar’s letter, disputing the 

allegations. Sun Electric’s attorney asserted that Reliable Power Systems, 

Inc., was a corporation with no business operations, that all company 

operations were through Sun Electric, and that Reliable Power Systems 

was a fictitious name. 

When Reliable Power Systems failed to comply with Lenmar’s demands, 

Lenmar notified Reliable of its intent to terminate the alleged tenancy at 

will, effective August 31, 2017. 

The Sun Electric v. Lenmar Lawsuit

Before the August 31 deadline expired, Sun Electric filed a three-count 

lawsuit against Lenmar. In Sun Electric’s amended complaint, it asserted 

counts for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and constructive 

eviction. 
3

Lenmar answered and raised various affirmative defenses, including 

that (1) Sun Electric permitted an unauthorized tenant, Reliable Power 

Systems, to occupy the leased premises, and (2) Sun Electric had failed to 

pay rent into the court registry, entitling Lenmar to immediate possession 

of the leased premises. Lenmar’s answer sought “the entry of a judgment 

against [Sun Electric] ordering [Sun Electric] to go hence without day, and 

an award of attorney’s fees and allowable costs.”

The Lenmar v. Reliable Power Systems Lawsuit

Reliable Power Systems failed to vacate the leased premises by the 

August 31, 2017 deadline. Shortly thereafter, Lenmar sued Reliable Power 

Systems for non-residential tenant eviction and damages. Lenmar’s 

request for damages included double rent for each month Reliable Power 

Systems held over in the leased premises.2

Lenmar’s lawsuit was transferred to the same division as Sun Electric’s 

lawsuit and the cases were consolidated for all purposes. 

Sun Electric’s Rent Deposits into the Court Registry

Lenmar began to reject Sun Electric’s rent checks because the checks 

also listed Reliable Power Systems. Sun Electric moved to deposit rent in 

the court registry. The trial court granted the motion by agreed order, 

retroactive to September 2017. 

Lenmar’s Motions to Disburse Rent

Sun Electric and Reliable Power Systems vacated the leased premises 

on July 6, 2018. 

Lenmar later moved to disburse the rents deposited into the court 

registry and to compel the payment of the remaining rent balance due. 

The trial court denied the motion without prejudice to Lenmar’s right to 

address the issue at trial. Lenmar filed a renewed motion to disperse rents 

deposited into the court registry.

2 Although we do not decide this issue, we note that Lenmar’s approach was not 

the only way to address Reliable Power Systems’ possession of the premises. For 

example, “[i]t is a well-settled principle of landlord-tenant law that a sublease 

rises and falls with the master lease, and that a sublessee can take no greater 

rights in demised property than its sublessor.” Thal v. S.G.D. Corp., 625 So. 2d 

852, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Lenmar might have included Sun Electric as a 

party in the eviction lawsuit for violation of the subletting clause of the lease.
4

The Trial

The case proceeded to a non-jury trial.

One of the main issues in contention was whether Reliable Power 

Systems was a fictitious name for Sun Electric or instead was a separate 

corporation. There was testimony that Sun Electric vacated the premises 

on July 6, 2018, and the premises remained vacant until January 31, 

2019.

The Original Final Judgment

The trial court entered a final judgment ruling against Sun Electric on 

its claims against Lenmar for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and 

constructive eviction. The court found that Reliable Power Systems was a 

separate legal entity with a separate business plan from that of Sun 

Electric. The court ruled that Sun Electric breached the lease by 

permitting Reliable Power Systems—an unauthorized occupant—to locate 

on the leased premises without Lenmar’s consent. The court found that 

Sun Electric failed to prove that it was constructively evicted or that 

Lenmar anticipatorily breached the lease.

The trial court ruled for Reliable Power Systems in Lenmar’s action for 

eviction and damages. It found that the eviction claim was moot since 

Reliable had already vacated the premises. As to the damages claim, the 

court reasoned that there was no lease between Lenmar and Reliable 

Power Systems, so there was no contractual basis to hold Reliable 

responsible. The court rejected Lenmar’s claim that Reliable Power 

Systems occupied the property under a tenancy at will, since Sun Electric 

had a written lease for the units.

Significantly for this appeal, the trial court denied Lenmar’s claim for 

the rent deposited in the court registry because there was no counterclaim 

or “other plead[ed] affirmative relief against Sun Electric.” The court 

ordered that the deposited rental funds be returned to Sun Electric.3

Lenmar Was Entitled to Obtain the Rental Monies from the Court 

Registry by Filing a Motion, Without Filing a Pleading Containing a 

Cause of Action Directed at Obtaining the Funds

3 The court entered an amended final judgment that made some changes but 

preserved the rulings discussed in this opinion.
5

The trial court erroneously concluded that Lenmar was not entitled to 

the release of rents deposited into the court registry because it did not 

assert such a claim in a pleading, but instead pursued the claim by preand post-trial motions. Lenmar was entitled to assert a claim by motion 

because entitlement to the rent deposits in the court registry was ancillary 

to the asserted claims for relief.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading is not the exclusive way 

of seeking relief from the court. A litigant may also bring a motion setting 

“forth the relief or order sought.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(b). 

The consolidated case involved a claim for possession of real property. 

In such cases, there are often competing claims regarding rent that accrue 

during the pendency of an action for possession. Chapter 83, Florida 

Statutes (2018), entitled “Landlord and Tenant,” has established 

procedures calling for the deposit of rent, as it accrues, during the 

pendency of an action for possession into the registry of the court. §

83.232, Fla. Stat. (2018) (commercial tenancies); § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. 

(2018) (residential tenancies). 

Section 83.232, Florida Statutes, governs rent paid into the registry of 

the court in actions for possession involving nonresidential tenancies:

(1) In an action by the landlord which includes a claim 

for possession of real property, the tenant shall pay into 

the court registry the amount alleged in the complaint as 

unpaid, or if such amount is contested, such amount as is 

determined by the court, and any rent accruing during the 

pendency of the action, when due, unless the tenant has 

interposed the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent 

in the amount the complaint alleges as unpaid. . . . If the 

landlord is in actual danger of loss of the premises or 

other hardship resulting from the loss of rental income 

from the premises, the landlord may apply to the court 

for disbursement of all or part of the funds so held in the 

court registry. 

§ 83.232(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added).

“Section 83.232 is designed to protect a commercial landlord from 

irreparable harm where a tenant holds over during eviction proceedings 

without paying rent.” Famsun Invest, LLC v. Therault, 95 So. 3d 961, 963

(Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The statute contains “no express limitation that the 

claim for possession be based upon unpaid rent.” Misha Enters. v. GAR 
6

Enters., LLC, 117 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Nor does the 

statute require a litigant to file a claim for affirmative relief to obtain the 

proceeds from the court registry.

Section 83.232(1) states that a landlord “may apply to the court” for 

disbursement of funds in the court registry. This language contemplates 

that a landlord may assert a claim for disbursement of funds by motion 

rather than by a pleading.

Requiring the assertion of a claim in a pleading to obtain rental funds 

in the court registry is contrary to the expedited procedure applicable in 

landlord-tenant actions. Actions seeking removal of a commercial tenant

are subject to “the summary procedure provided” in section 51.011, 

Florida Statutes (2018). § 83.21, Fla. Stat. (2018). Section 51.011 

provides for limited pleadings with short response times. The requirement 

of a separate pleading after a rental deposit order would necessarily slow 

down and complicate what is supposed to be an expedited, simple process. 

The point of a rental deposit statute is to secure rental monies in a neutral 

place so that they can be quickly allocated and distributed by the court. 

A landlord may apply by motion for disbursement of rental funds under 

rule 1.100(b) in connection with a final disposition of the case.

Here, there is no dispute that Sun Electric occupied the premises under 

a lease until July 6, 2018. Until that time, Sun Electric paid into the court 

registry the “rent accruing during the pendency of the action.” The trial 

court ordered return of the rental payments to Sun Electric because 

Lenmar had not pled for any affirmative relief against Sun Electric. This 

order added insult to injury because Sun Electric had not pleaded for the 

relief of any rebate or refund of the rent monies paid. Once the trial court 

entered a final judgment in favor of Lenmar on Sun Electric’s causes of 

action, Sun Electric had no possible claim to the money in the court 

registry.

For these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the 

circuit court for release of the funds in the court registry to Lenmar, or for 

such other relief as may be proper.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LEVINE, C.J., and KLINGENSMITH, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.