Court Opinion

ID: 9379377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 15:04:12.22402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.429418
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

     DESTINY FULFILLED OUTREACH MINISTRIES, INC. d/b/a
      LITTLE WALKER’S AT THE EARLY LEARNING CENTER,
                         Appellant,

                                     v.

                       INVESTMENTS SWK, LLC,
                              Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-228

                             [March 15, 2023]

   Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; John Hurley, Judge; L.T. Case No. CONO21-024517.

   Michael L. Buckner of Buckner Legal Self-Help Program, Inc., Coral
Springs, for appellant.

   Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation &
Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

GROSS, J.

   We affirm the final judgment of eviction in all respects. The evidence
at trial and the language of the Letter of Intent both support the trial
court’s conclusion that there was no meeting of the minds on the formation
of a five-year commercial lease. The tenancy was a month-to-month
tenancy which was properly terminated by the landlord.

    The county judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellant’s
motion for stay immediately prior to the eviction trial. The case upon
which appellant relies, REWJB Gas Investments v. Land O’Sun Realty, Ltd.,
645 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), is distinguishable. That case
involved a declaratory judgment in Dade County and twelve cases pending
in various other courts around the state. Id. at 1056. This case involved
a breach of contract action in the circuit court and an eviction action in
the county court, both in the same circuit. Significantly, appellant
litigated the eviction action for several months, without bringing the
motion to stay to the court’s attention until the day of the eviction trial.
There is no indication in REWJB that the party seeking a stay similarly
delayed in bringing the issue before the court. Finally, appellant never
filed a copy of the circuit court complaint in this case, so it is not a part of
the record on appeal. The breach of contract action pending in the circuit
court may well have benefitted from the county court’s determination that
no term lease was formed.

   REWJB does not stand for the proposition that a stay of a county court
case is always mandated when related cases are pending in the circuit and
county courts. Rather, that case was based on “the particular facts at
bar.” Id. Here, under different facts, the granting of a stay was a
discretionary call for the trial court.

   Affirmed.

CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

                             *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                       2