Landlord's Threat to Evict Doesn't Put Tenant Under "Duress"

What Happened: A car wash tenant insisted that it had made an oral agreement with the previous landlord limiting its obligation to pay to fixed rent only. But the new landlord didn’t buy it and insisted that the tenant also pay operating expenses and taxes. Even if there was an oral agreement, the lease plainly stated that rent amendments had to be in writing, it argued. Faced with “harassment” and threat of eviction, the tenant reluctantly coughed up the additional rent. But the dispute continued and the landlord sued to evict. The lower court tossed the case without a hearing, finding that the oral agreement did exist, the tenant was current on fixed rent, and the payment of additional rent was made “under duress.”

Ruling: The Florida appeals court reversed and allowed the landlord to go forward with the eviction case.

Reasoning: The lower court’s decision to bar the eviction claim on procedural grounds was a denial of the landlord’s right to due process. And the ruling on duress was flat out wrong. Threatening what one has a right to do—in this case, evict for nonpayment—is not duress, the court stressed.

• Hallandale Plaza, LLC v. New Tropical Car Wash, LLC, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1625