What is the name of your state? FL
In a lease I executed with a property owner about an year ago, both the words “extend” and “renew” are used (without defining them in the lease), each at a different place in that lease. Now it is time to renew or extend that lease. In that lease, the provision for “extending” the lease is conflicting with the provision for “renewing” the lease. I am not requesting which provision survives. I request whether these two terms “extend” and “renew” are the same in all aspects in a lease ? (if this is clarified then I know which of the above two provisions will survive). Some FL judgments on these two terms are,
Sisco v. Rotenberg, 104 So.2d 365 (1958): we are in accord with the plaintiff in this case that if any distinction may have been made in any other court as to "renewal" or "extension" of a lease, this Court will not consider such distinction. As we agreed in Leibowitz v. Christo, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 692, the distinction between the meaning of those two words when used in leases is too refined and theoretical to be real, as a matter of law, in practical affairs. Further, we have noticed in our research on this case that courts frequently speak of the question herein involved in relation to a lease as extended or renewed, using both terms.
Woodard v. Hartley 596 So.2d 1114 (1992): Under Florida law, no distinction is drawn between a "renewal" and an "extension" of a lease. Sisco v. Rotenberg, 104 So.2d 365, 370 (Fla. 1958); Leibowitz v. Christo, 75 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla. 1954) (the "distinction between the meaning of words renewal and extension was `too refined and theoretical to be real, as a matter of law, in practical affairs.'") (citation omitted); Strano v. Reisinger Real Estate, Inc., 534 So.2d 1214, 1215 n. 2 (Fla.3d DCA 1988), review dismissed, 542 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1989).
Google search reveals that the judgment Leibowitz v. Christo, about “extend” and “renew”, is referenced in a law book released most recently which makes me believe that the above law is still valid.
In a lease I executed with a property owner about an year ago, both the words “extend” and “renew” are used (without defining them in the lease), each at a different place in that lease. Now it is time to renew or extend that lease. In that lease, the provision for “extending” the lease is conflicting with the provision for “renewing” the lease. I am not requesting which provision survives. I request whether these two terms “extend” and “renew” are the same in all aspects in a lease ? (if this is clarified then I know which of the above two provisions will survive). Some FL judgments on these two terms are,
Sisco v. Rotenberg, 104 So.2d 365 (1958): we are in accord with the plaintiff in this case that if any distinction may have been made in any other court as to "renewal" or "extension" of a lease, this Court will not consider such distinction. As we agreed in Leibowitz v. Christo, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 692, the distinction between the meaning of those two words when used in leases is too refined and theoretical to be real, as a matter of law, in practical affairs. Further, we have noticed in our research on this case that courts frequently speak of the question herein involved in relation to a lease as extended or renewed, using both terms.
Woodard v. Hartley 596 So.2d 1114 (1992): Under Florida law, no distinction is drawn between a "renewal" and an "extension" of a lease. Sisco v. Rotenberg, 104 So.2d 365, 370 (Fla. 1958); Leibowitz v. Christo, 75 So.2d 692, 693 (Fla. 1954) (the "distinction between the meaning of words renewal and extension was `too refined and theoretical to be real, as a matter of law, in practical affairs.'") (citation omitted); Strano v. Reisinger Real Estate, Inc., 534 So.2d 1214, 1215 n. 2 (Fla.3d DCA 1988), review dismissed, 542 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1989).
Google search reveals that the judgment Leibowitz v. Christo, about “extend” and “renew”, is referenced in a law book released most recently which makes me believe that the above law is still valid.
Last edited:
