Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Chase
Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In January 1955, women’s dress-shop owner Florence Lustig Crossman (plaintiff) was asked by Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. (Fontainebleau) (defendant) to open a dress shop in Fontainebleau’s new Miami hotel. The parties orally agreed on the terms of a lease. To help the hotel establish shopping for guests quickly, Crossman agreed to move in immediately, before the execution of the formal lease. Crossman took possession of the premises, spent $50,000 on fixtures and improvements, and gave the hotel $5,000 as a good faith deposit. After Crossman began improvements, Fontainebleau provided a written lease that Crossman alleged was not in accordance with the parties’ original oral agreement. Crossman’s husband and a hotel representative each penciled in changes to the lease, and both parties’ representatives approved the changes. Fontainebleau’s representative said that he would take the lease back to the hotel’s attorneys for redrafting, but Crossman never received an updated lease. Nevertheless, Crossman occupied the premises and began paying rent on March 1, 1955. In July 1958, Crossman notified Fontainebleau that she wished to exercise her option under the lease to renew the lease term. Fontainebleau denied that Crossman had an option to renew and demanded Crossman return the premises no later than September 1959. Crossman sued Fontainebleau, seeking a declaration that the lease had a renewal clause. Fontainebleau moved to dismiss, arguing that the entire lease was invalid, because it violated the Florida statute of frauds. Crossman responded that her possession of the property, payment of rent, and expenditure on improvements made the statute of frauds inapplicable to this lease. The district court found for Fontainebleau. Crossman appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.