Court Opinion

ID: 9893863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 19:02:34.697858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:43.030326
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14350   Document: 65-1    Date Filed: 10/30/2023    Page: 1 of 5

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 21-14350
                         ____________________

       In re: HOWARD AVENUE STATION, LLC,
                                                               Debtor.
       ___________________________________________________

       HOWARD AVENUE STATION, LLC,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       THOMAS ORTIZ,
                                             Interested Party-Appellee,
       versus
       FRANK KANE,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 21-14350        Document: 65-1           Date Filed: 10/30/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                    21-14350

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02491-WFJ,
                               8:12-bk-08821-CPM
                            ____________________

       Before GRANT, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and HUFFAKER,* District
       Judge.
       PER CURIAM:
              Several years ago, appellant Frank Kane (the “Landlord”)
       leased certain commercial real property to Howard Avenue Sta-
       tion, LLC (the “Tenant”). In 2012, after Tenant allegedly failed to
       meet his rental obligation, Landlord brought an eviction proceed-
       ing against Tenant in a Florida state court. Tenant responded by
       seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the
       Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida. Landlord
       moved the Bankruptcy Court for relief from the automatic stay
       pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to enforce his rights in state court,
       and alternatively, to compel Tenant to pay all post-petition rent and
       make monthly adequate protection payments of $21,400. The
       Bankruptcy Court granted Landlord’s alternative motion.

       * Honorable R. Austin Huffaker, United States District Judge for the Middle

       District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 21-14350         Document: 65-1         Date Filed: 10/30/2023         Page: 3 of 5

       21-14350                   Opinion of the Court                               3

              In 2019, Tenant moved the Bankruptcy Court for leave to
       abate these rental payments after the City of Tampa ordered Ten-
       ant to vacate the property because it was unﬁt for human habita-
       tion. The Bankruptcy court granted the motion on July 12, 2019,
       pursuant to Florida Statute § 83.201. 1 In its order, the Bankruptcy
       Court stated that “[a]dequate protection payments are abated until
       the required repairs have been made . . . at which time any

       1 Florida Statute § 83.201 provides:

               When the lease is silent on the procedure to be followed to
               effect repair or maintenance and the payment of rent relating
               thereto, yet affirmatively and expressly places the obligation
               for same upon the landlord, and the landlord has failed or re-
               fused to do so, rendering the leased premises wholly un-
               tenantable, the tenant may withhold rent after notice to the
               landlord. The tenant shall serve the landlord, in the manner
               prescribed by s. 83.20(3), with a written notice declaring the
               premises to be wholly untenantable, giving the landlord at
               least 20 days to make the specifically described repair or
               maintenance, and stating that the tenant will withhold the rent
               for the next rental period and thereafter until the repair or
               maintenance has been performed. The lease may provide for
               a longer period of time for repair or maintenance. Once the
               landlord has completed the repair or maintenance, the tenant
               shall pay the landlord the amounts of rent withheld. If the
               landlord does not complete the repair or maintenance in the
               allotted time, the parties may extend the time by written
               agreement or the tenant may abandon the premises, retain the
               amounts of rent withheld, terminate the lease, and avoid any
               liability for future rent or charges under the lease. This section
               is cumulative to other existing remedies, and this section does
               not prevent any tenant from exercising his or her other reme-
               dies.
USCA11 Case: 21-14350     Document: 65-1      Date Filed: 10/30/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                21-14350

       withheld rent and/or adequate protection payments shall be paid.”
       Fourteen days later, Thomas Ortiz, Tenant’s sole member, moved
       the Bankruptcy Court for rehearing or modiﬁcation of the July 12
       order. Ortiz asked that the order be modiﬁed to provide that Ten-
       ant was relieved of its obligation to pay any back rent if the leased
       premises were repaired. The Bankruptcy Court denied this motion
       in an order entered on August 28, 2019.
              Tenant appealed the July 12 and August 28 orders to the Dis-
       trict Court. In response to Tenant’s argument that it should not be
       obligated to pay back rent upon reoccupying the buildings, the Dis-
       trict Court recognized the obvious. That is, if Tenant reoccupies
       the building, Tenant will have a claim against Landlord for the dam-
       ages it sustained while deprived of the use of the leased premises.
       And requiring Tenant to pay the back rent in advance of a determi-
       nation of such damages—presumably in the form of a setoﬀ or
       counterclaim—would be inequitable. The District Court aﬃrmed
       the Bankruptcy Court’s orders in part (concerning the abatement
       of rent due while the leased premises were inhabitable) and re-
       versed it in part (concerning the requirement that Tenant pay the
       back rent upon resuming possession of the premises). [Id.]
             Landlord appeals the District Court’s decision. It seeks an
       aﬃrmance of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision—speciﬁcally, the re-
       quirement that Tenant pay back rent upon reentering the leased
       premises. We are persuaded that, in the interests of equity, the
USCA11 Case: 21-14350        Document: 65-1         Date Filed: 10/30/2023        Page: 5 of 5

       21-14350                  Opinion of the Court                               5

       District Court’s solution is just and reasonable. Accordingly, we
       aﬃrm.2
              AFFIRMED.

       2 The motion of Thomas Ortiz to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is

       denied. The motion of Frank Kane to dismiss Thomas Ortiz as a party to this
       appeal is also denied.