Court Opinion

ID: 4784194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-19 08:29:11.382082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:11.106278
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the chancellor erred when he found that the forfeiture of the security deposit under the hotel lease involved was a penalty rather than liquidated damages. The decree is affirmed upon authority of Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, Fla.1951, 58 So.2d 673; Kanter v. Safran, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 553; Pappas v. Deringer, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 770.
Affirmed.