Sparkman v. Hardy

78 So. 2d 584 (1955)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sued to compel the acceptance by D of monthly advance rent in the sum of $120.00 for premises that P leased from D. The lease was dated March 29, 1945, and was to run for a period of ten years, with the right of renewal, under certain conditions, for an additional fifteen years. P was to use the store for an electrical appliance shop. P charged that D refused to accept the January 1952 rent; and such amount, together with the amount to accrue until the disposition of the cause, was paid into the registry of the court. P prayed for permission to continue the payment of the monthly rentals into court in order to prevent a forfeiture for failure to pay rent when, and as the same became due until the court should direct the method and manner of payment. D refused rent because P made material changes and alterations in the building without her permission; and that they declined to restore the building to its former state after she protested. A partition had been placed in the building, which shut off about ten leaving the store proper only twenty feet instead of thirty feet wide. P then sublet that part of the store to a jewelry store. P also changed the glass as well. There were no provisions in the lease prohibiting this conduct by P. P refused to undue the changes and D stopped accepting rent. D claimed that these acts converted the building into a different kind of structure, with consequent damage to its value; that such material changes constituted waste; and that the restoration of the building to its previous state will be expensive. D prayed for the cancellation of the lease and the assignment, and for recovery of damages on account of the changes. At trial, P showed that the changes were temporary in nature; that the building could be restored to its previous condition at small cost; and the changes increased its value. P also claims D knew of the changes and did not protest. The building was insured for $15,000 and D’s witness testified it would cost $1,000 to restore the building. The court found for P and D appealed.