Peeping-tom landlord found guilty of constructive eviction.

Summary:  interference with the tenant’s use and beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises constitutes constructive eviction

In the case of  Kaminski  v. Gibson Case 05-CC-02240LT 13th Judicial Hillsboro County, FL [13 Fla L. weekly Supp. 105]  the landlord rented a commercial space to Defendant on an annual lease which was operated as a tanning salon.   The landlord was said to have frequently peered through the front window of the salon during the tenancy and also to enter the leased premises un-announced through the back door and go through the tenant’s cabinets.  The landlord would also “touch the knobs” on the doors to the individual tanning booths.  Customers said they felt uncomfortable when the landlord did this as they were completely undressed during their sessions in the tanning booths.  The landlord was also alleged to have “mooned” a customer of the tanning salon and the customer’s daughter from his residence on the second floor.  Customers also said that the landlord was frequently seen looking into their cars.  The tenant stated that the landlord would also stand in front of her car at closing time, such that she felt unsafe and had to call the police to secure safe access to her vehicle.  

            As a result the tenant did not pay the January rent.  The landlord filed an eviction, and the tenant moved out three days later, and filed a defense to the eviction of “constructive eviction.”   Florida law provides that “constructive eviction” is any act which, although not constituting an actual eviction, is done with an expressed or implied intention  and has the effect of essentially interfering with the tenant’s beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises.  A wrongly evicted tenant may recover for the loss resulting from injury to business, for improvements to the premises, and for the return of the tenant’s security deposit.   The tenant has the burden of proving the claim of constructive eviction by the preponderance of the evidence.

In this case the court found that the landlord’s actions interfered with the tenant’s use and beneficial enjoyment  of the leased premises. 
Additionally, the court found that the landlord had violated the lease by the frequent unannounced intrusions through the back door as the lease restricted inspections to “reasonable times and upon reasonable notice.”  The court ruled that the tenant was not responsible to pay any rent from the time that she vacated the premises, but she was held responsible for the cost or restoring the premises to their original condition.