Westgate & Wabasso, Corp. v. Word of Faith Community Development Corporation

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
WESTGATE & WABASSO CORP.,
Appellant,
v.
WORD OF FAITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-0506
[February 18, 2026]
Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach 	County; 	Sara 	Alijewicz, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
502024SC013883XXXAWB.
Jesse I. Unruh and Mónica Monsalve-Burr of Spire Law, PLLC, Oviedo,
for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
M AY , J.
The difference between residential and commercial lease statutes and
a landlord-tenant dispute over a security deposit form the basis of this
appeal. 	A landlord appeals a final judgment in favor of the tenant. 	The
landlord argues the trial court erred when it ordered the landlord to return
a portion of the tenant’s security deposit with interest. 	We agree and
reverse.
• 	Facts
The landlord entered a written commercial lease with the tenant. 	The
lease included the following provision:
ARTICLE FIVE - DEPOSIT. Tenant, concurrently with the
execution 	of 	this 	Lease, 	shall 	deposit 	with 	Landlord 	the
Deposit, 	to 	be 	retained 	by 	Landlord 	as 	security 	for 	the
payment by Tenant of the Rents and all other payments herein
agreed to be paid by Tenant, and for the faithful performance

2
by Tenant of the terms, covenants and conditions of this
Lease. It is agreed that Landlord, at Landlord’s option, may
at the time of any default of Tenant under any of the
terms, covenants or conditions of the Lease apply said
sum or any part thereof toward the payment of the Rent,
and 	towards 	the 	performance 	of 	each 	and 	every 	one 	of
Tenant’s covenants under this Lease, but such covenants and
Tenant’s liability under this Lease shall thereby be discharged
only 	pro-tanto 	that 	Tenant 	shall 	remain 	liable 	for 	any
amounts that such sum shall be insufficient to pay; that
Landlord may exhaust any and all rights and remedies against
Tenant 	before 	resorting 	to 	said 	sum, 	but 	nothing 	herein
contained shall require or be deemed to require Landlord so
to do. In the event Landlord uses or applies the Deposit, as
provided 	for 	above, 	Tenant 	shall 	immediately 	restore 	the
Deposit 	to 	its 	original 	amount 	upon 	written 	demand 	by
Landlord to do so. In the event and/or to the extent that the
Deposit shall not be utilized as set forth above, it shall be
returned by Landlord to Tenant within thirty (30) days after
the expiration of the Term, and only after Tenant having
satisfied all of its terms, covenants and conditions of this
Lease. Landlord shall not be required to pay Tenant any
interest on the Deposit. The Deposit may be co-mingled by
Landlord 	with 	its 	own 	funds, 	[sic] 	Tenant 	further
acknowledges that the Deposit is not to be construed as
prepaid Rent by Tenant for, or any rental period of the Term.
Put simply, the provision permitted the landlord to apply the deposit
toward unpaid rent or other lease obligations. 	And the landlord was not
required to pay the tenant interest on the deposit. 	Any unused portion of
the deposit was to be returned within thirty days of the lease term’s
expiration, provided the tenant satisfied all lease obligations.
At the start of the lease, the tenant paid $10,300, consisting of a $5,000
security deposit and $5,300 for the last month’s rent. The tenant vacated
the premises in March 2024. 	By then, the monthly rent had increased to
$6,550.40. 	The tenant did not pay the full amount owed for the final
month. The landlord applied $1,204.00 from the security deposit to cover
the unpaid rent balance and returned the remaining $3,796.00 to the
tenant in July.
In an email exchange, the landlord explained that it had withheld a
portion of the tenant’s security deposit to satisfy the outstanding rent
obligation. 	The landlord advised the tenant that the final rent payment

3
was 	inadequate, 	and 	the 	lease 	authorized 	the 	landlord 	to 	apply 	the
security deposit to any rent deficiency. 	The tenant responded the lease
did not permit an increase in the final month’s rent, and the landlord was
required to return the withheld security deposit.
The following month, the tenant filed a Statement of Claim seeking
$4,812.52, consisting of $1,204.00 in principal, $3,381.42 in interest, and
$227.10 in costs. 	The trial court entered a final judgment in the tenant’s
favor for $4,812.52 following a non-jury trial. 	The trial court found:
1. The [landlord] did not comply with Florida Statutes in
providing a notice of intent to make any claim on the
security deposit whatsoever.
2. The lease indicates that the last month rent was pre-paid
at 	the 	inception 	and 	made 	no 	provisions 	for 	annual
increases that were contemplated by the lease, so even if
the notice [of] intent to make a claim was mailed, they
would 	not 	be 	entitled 	to 	the 	increased 	rent 	without
language to that effect within the lease.
From this judgment, the landlord now appeals.
• 	Analysis
The 	landlord 	argues 	the 	trial 	court 	erred 	by 	applying 	residential
statutory requirements governing the return of security deposits to the
commercial 	lease 	instead 	of 	following 	the 	lease 	provisions. 	Those
provisions expressly allowed the landlord to deduct unpaid rent from the
security deposit and did not provide for interest.
We have de novo review of legal issues. 	Lopez v. Hall, 233 So. 3d 451,
453 (Fla. 2018); Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, 864 So.
2d 1163, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
“It 	is 	a 	general 	canon 	of 	statutory 	construction 	that, 	when 	the
legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not
in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed
to have been excluded intentionally.” 	L.K. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., 917 So.
2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Part II of Chapter 83, Florida Statutes (2024), governs residential
leases. 	It 	expressly 	regulates 	security 	deposits, 	including 	notice
requirements, deadlines for return, and interest in certain circumstances.

4
See §§ 83.40–83.71, Fla. Stat. (2024). 	By contrast, Part I of Chapter 83
applies to nonresidential leases and contains no provisions governing
the timing, manner, or interest applicable to the return of a security
deposit. 	See §§ 83.001–83.37, Fla. Stat. (2024).
In short, the statutory law does not impose the same requirements for
a commercial lease that the trial court used in ruling for the tenant.
The landlord relies on three cases, all of which support its position.
Nuñez v. Aviv Air Conditioning, Inc., 319 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021);
Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393, 401 (Fla. 1954); and Buyer’s Choice Auto
Sales, LLC v. Palm Beach Motors, LLC, 391 So. 3d 463, 468–69 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2024).
Here, the trial court found the landlord did not comply with statutory
requirements for notice of intent to make a claim on the security deposit.
But there was no statutory requirement for notice applicable to this
commercial lease. 	The trial court also found the lease had no provision
for annual increases. 	Yet, the record reflects the lease provided for rent
adjustments. 	The trial court simply erred in its application of statutory
law and the lease agreement’s terms. 	We therefore reverse and remand
the case for entry of a judgment in the landlord’s favor.1
Reversed and remanded.
CONNER and L OTT , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
1 The trial court also erred in awarding interest of $3,381.42, at an effective rate
of 749%. Our reversal, however, moots this issue.