When a commercial tenant defaults, landlords often want to know one thing: Can I recover the rest of the rent for the lease term now—rather than month by month?
In Florida, the answer usually depends on the lease. Acceleration is a powerful remedy when drafted correctly, but Florida courts also treat it with an important limiter: acceleration is not meant to produce a double recovery or a windfall. Instead, it’s best understood as a contractual tool that changes timing and litigation posture, while still tethered to the principle that a landlord should recover its net lease loss.
This post explains how acceleration works in Florida commercial leases, how it interacts with remedy choice and mitigation concepts, and what landlords and tenants should keep in mind when drafting or litigating these provisions.
1) Acceleration Is Not Automatic: It Must Be Provided for by Contract
In Florida commercial leasing, acceleration is generally not an automatic statutory right. If a landlord wants the ability to declare the balance of rent due for the remainder of the term after a default, the lease should contain a clear acceleration provision stating that, upon defined default:
- the landlord may declare the remaining rent (and “additional rent,” if defined) immediately due; and
- the landlord may pursue a present judgment for that amount.
If the lease is silent, a landlord is often left to more traditional contract remedies, including pursuing rent as it comes due, or pursuing damages tied to reletting outcomes depending on the remedy elected and what the lease allows.
2) Remedy Choice Still Drives Damages: A Helpful Conceptual Framework (and Why § 83.595 Comes Up)
A statute that people frequently reference when explaining landlord remedies is Fla. Stat. § 83.595, which lays out a “choice of remedies” after a tenant breach in the residential context.
Important distinction: Section 83.595 applies to dwelling units (residential), and it does not directly govern commercial leases.
Even so, the concept is useful because it illustrates a core reality that applies in commercial cases too: the landlord’s remedy election is not just a box to check—it drives the damages model and the proof. Commercial leases often “write the playbook” themselves, with detailed provisions on default, termination, surrender, re-entry, reletting, and (often) acceleration. But regardless of how the lease is drafted, the same practical remedy “buckets” tend to show up:
- Terminate / accept surrender and retake for the landlord’s own account;
- Retake possession and relet, holding the tenant responsible for a deficiency;
- Stand by and do nothing, holding the tenant to rent as it comes due; or
- Apply a contractual liquidated damages approach if the lease provides for it and it is enforceable.
The mitigation point: it’s often triggered by the landlord’s election—especially after retaking possession
Commercial leases frequently address mitigation expressly. Some impose an affirmative duty to mitigate; some disclaim it; and many try to control how reletting can occur (e.g., landlord may relet without accepting surrender, may reconfigure the space, may prioritize other vacancies, etc.). But the more important conceptual point is this:
Mitigation issues are often driven less by magic words (“duty to mitigate”) and more by what the landlord actually does after the default.
- When a landlord retakes possession and relets for the tenant’s account (i.e., pursues a deficiency), the case usually becomes an accounting exercise in what the landlord actually recovered and what must be creditedagainst what the tenant otherwise owes.
- By contrast, the “stand by and do nothing” concept (familiar from § 83.595’s framework) highlights why mitigation arguments often look different when the landlord is not retaking possession and is simply demanding rent as it comes due—there is no simultaneous recovery of both the premises and future rent that would create a windfall.
Where acceleration fits: a procedural tool that still requires a “no windfall” accounting after retaking possession
Acceleration is usually part of this discussion because it allows a landlord to avoid suing month-by-month and instead pursue a single judgment for amounts claimed to be due under the lease. But acceleration does not erase the mitigation/crediting question when the landlord also retakes possession.
Even if a lease attempts to disclaim mitigation, once the landlord takes the space back and later relets (or otherwise derives value from the premises), Florida courts generally focus on preventing double recovery—meaning the tenant will argue the accelerated amount must be reduced by credits/setoffs reflecting what the landlord recovered after retaking possession. That is why, in practice, accelerated-rent cases involving retaking possession often require the court to reserve jurisdiction (or otherwise address a later “true-up”) to determine the final setoff/crediting calculation—an issue that comes up in cases like Horizon when acceleration is pursued alongside retaking/reletting.
Bottom line: § 83.595 doesn’t necessary control commercial leases, but it provides a clean conceptual framework: your remedy election drives whether the dispute is (a) future rent over time, (b) a deficiency with credits, or (c) an accelerated claim that still requires setoffs once the landlord retakes and relets.
3) The Key Point: Acceleration Is Primarily Procedural—Not a New Category of Damages
Acceleration can feel like a “bigger” remedy because it allows a landlord to seek a present judgment for rent that would otherwise come due over time. But conceptually, Florida courts treat acceleration as something closer to timing and burden-shifting, rather than a substantive right to collect more than the landlord’s actual net loss.
In other words:
- acceleration can streamline the lawsuit, and
- acceleration can shift the burden to the tenant to prove credits and reductions,
but acceleration is not intended to give the landlord additional damages beyond what the breach would otherwise produce.
That is why Florida courts scrutinize the interaction between accelerated rent and reletting.
4) Horizon Medical Group: If You Accelerate, You Need a Mechanism for Credits and Setoffs
A helpful Florida appellate decision on this issue is Horizon Medical Group v. City Center of Charlotte County, Ltd., 779 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
In Horizon, the landlord obtained a judgment that included accelerated rent for the remainder of the lease term. The court affirmed the judgment but required an important correction: the judgment needed a mechanism to prevent the landlord from receiving a double recovery if the premises were later relet during the remaining term. The court explained that a landlord cannot “collect accelerated rent…, relet…, and retain those rental proceeds as well,” and required the judgment to allow an accounting/credit during the remaining term.
Practical takeaway: If a landlord accelerates rent and later relets, the tenant is generally entitled to pursue credits or setoffs for rent received during the remaining term (to avoid double recovery), and the judgment should be structured so those credits can be addressed.
5) Acceleration and Mitigation: Where the Fight Usually Happens
Commercial lease disputes often turn on this practical question:
If the landlord accelerates rent and retakes possession, what happens when the space is relet?
This is where the “windfall” concern arises. If a landlord accelerates rent and simultaneously relets the premises during the remaining term, Florida courts are sensitive to the idea that the landlord should not keep both revenue streams without accounting for one against the other.
That is why Horizon is so useful. It supports the idea that, when accelerated rent is awarded and reletting occurs during the balance of the term, the court should retain the ability to account for credits and setoffs to keep the recovery tied to the landlord’s net loss.
This is not just academic. It affects:
- how damages are pleaded,
- how final judgment is drafted, and
- whether the court reserves jurisdiction to handle a future accounting during the remainder of the term.
6) Why the “Stand By and Do Nothing” Concept Is Different
One remedy concept sometimes discussed (and explicitly listed in § 83.595 for residential) is the option to stand by and do nothing, holding the tenant liable for rent as it comes due.
Commercial leases are contract-driven, and whether this path makes sense depends on the lease language and facts. But as a conceptual matter, this is why the “stand by” approach is often discussed differently from acceleration-plus-reletting:
- If the landlord truly does nothing and does not retake possession, the landlord is not obtaining the benefit of possession while also locking in a present judgment for future rent.
- The double-recovery concern is most pronounced when a landlord accelerates and relets and then attempts to keep both without crediting.
7) Drafting Tips: Make Acceleration Effective and Avoid Unnecessary Litigation Problems
If you want acceleration to function well in a Florida commercial lease, the lease should do more than say “rent accelerates.” Consider addressing:
A) Clear triggers and procedure
- What constitutes default?
- Is notice and an opportunity to cure required?
- When may acceleration be exercised?
B) Define what is being accelerated
- Base rent only?
- “Additional rent” (CAM, taxes, insurance, fees)?
- Interest, late charges, attorneys’ fees?
C) Address credits/setoffs if reletting occurs
Because Florida courts disfavor double recovery, a well-drafted lease often clarifies how reletting impacts damages, including:
- whether rent received from a replacement tenant during the remaining term is credited against the accelerated balance; and
- what costs the landlord may deduct (commissions, re-letting costs, build-out, etc.), to the extent enforceable.
D) Judgment mechanics
In litigation, if acceleration is sought and reletting may occur during the remaining term, consider requesting judgment language that preserves the ability to address credits/setoffs—consistent with Horizon’s requirement for an accounting mechanism when accelerated rent is awarded and the premises are relet.
Bottom Line
Acceleration is a powerful contractual remedy in Florida commercial leases. It can convert a long damages timeline into a single present claim. But Florida courts generally do not treat acceleration as a license for double recovery.
- Acceleration should be expressly provided for in the lease.
- Acceleration is best viewed as timing and leverage—not a new category of damages.
- If a landlord accelerates and later relets during the remaining term, a credit/setoff accounting may be required to prevent a double recovery, as reflected in Horizon Medical Group v. City Center of Charlotte County, Ltd..
If you are drafting a commercial lease, enforcing a lease after a tenant default, or defending against an acceleration claim, the details matter—especially how the lease addresses acceleration, reletting, and credits.
Need Help Drafting or Enforcing a Florida Commercial Lease?
If you are a Florida commercial landlord, property manager, or business owner and want your lease remedies drafted with litigation realities in mind—or you are dealing with a tenant default now—contact Andrew Douglas, P.A. through douglasfirm.com to discuss a flat-fee lease review or enforcement strategy.
Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every lease and default scenario is fact-specific.