Does New Two-Hour Parking Rule Unreasonably Impair Tenant’s Business?

March 23, 2023

What Happened: With the shopping center almost entirely vacant, the landlord didn’t care all that much that a bridge club tenant was letting its customers park in the front and rear lots. But as new tenants began moving in, demand for parking space increased and the landlord had to tighten the rules, relying on its lease right to establish: “reasonable rules. . .

What Happened: With the shopping center almost entirely vacant, the landlord didn’t care all that much that a bridge club tenant was letting its customers park in the front and rear lots. But as new tenants began moving in, demand for parking space increased and the landlord had to tighten the rules, relying on its lease right to establish: “reasonable rules. . . for the proper and efficient use, operation and maintenance of the Common Area.” The tenant claimed that the new restrictions limiting customers to the front lot for a two-hour maximum were unreasonable and a violation of its covenant of quiet enjoyment.

Ruling: The lower court granted summary judgment to the landlord, but the Florida appeals court reversed.  

Reasoning: “We have no difficulty concluding that there is a genuine issue of fact concerning the ‘reasonableness’ of” the new parking rules. It takes more than two hours to complete a round of bridge, the court explained. The new two-hour restriction prevented the tenant from continuing to run the business for which it had used the space for 10 years. Moreover, the landlord was aware of this and, without offering an explanation, rejected the tenant’s alternate proposal for alleviating the parking problem without crippling its business or inconveniencing any other tenant.

  • G & G in Between Bridge Club Corp. v. Palm Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 826, 2023 WL 1806108   

Topics

More like this