This case involves a claim of damages to a hair salon occurring during a month-to-month tenancy pursuant to a written lease.
Under the lease agreement, the Defendant “agree[d] to accept the premises in their present condition, and at the time of leaving premises will be the same or better conditions.” Additionally, the agreement provided that at the time of signing the agreement, the Defendant acknowledged that the “premises are in good clean condition.” The evidence demonstrated that the Defendant and his workers left extensive hair dye stains over much of the walls and doors, well beyond what one might be consider ordinary wear and tear. Additionally, the terms of the written agreement required the Defendant to put the premises back in the condition at the inception of the lease. This the Defendant did not do, resulting in a painting expense of $2,350.00.
Plaintiff produced evidence of damaged equipment, but not competent evidence of the amount it would cost to repair or replace these items. As a result, the Court can award no more than $10.00 in nominal damages.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient for the Court to conclude that there was an agreement for the Defendant to pay for the use of styling products or their costs.
DILENIA PEREZ, v. BRANDON ALI SHERMAN, County Court, Broward County. Case No. COCE21066435, January 13, 2022. Robert W. Lee, Judge. 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 778a
Florida Landlord-Tenant Law 
You must be logged in to post a comment.