COINCIDENCE, OR IS AÇAÍ CRAZE OVER?
BOYNTON BEACH, FL (BocaNewsNow.com) (Copyright © 2025 MetroDesk Media, LLC) — It turns out the Acai Bowl business may be facing issues — at least in South Florida. We reported yesterday on the closure of two “Necter” locations in Delray Beach and Coconut Creek. Now a commercial landlord in Palm Beach County has filed a lawsuit seeking the eviction of a local “SoBol” acai bowl franchise, alleging unpaid rent and breach of lease. On December 3, 2025, 6627 West Boynton, LLC, the owner of The Fountains of Boynton Shopping Plaza, filed the complaint in Palm Beach County Circuit Court against JRM Acai Enterprises of Boynton Beach Inc. and its owners.
The suit targets the tenant’s operation at 6691 Boynton Beach Blvd, claiming the business has failed to meet its financial obligations under the lease agreement. The legal dispute centers on a ten-year lease originally signed on July 9, 2020, which allowed the tenant to operate a quick-service restaurant specializing in acai bowls and smoothies. The plaintiff states that the lease was subsequently modified in May 2023, but the tenant has since defaulted on payments. According to the complaint, the tenant is indebted for base rent, real estate taxes, common area maintenance charges, and sales tax.
The conflict escalated in late 2025 when the landlord moved to retake the premises. On October 20, 2025, the plaintiff posted a “3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or the Monies Owed or Give Possession,” a statutory prerequisite for eviction in Florida. The notice demanded payment of $34,200.71 for outstanding charges accrued through October 31, 2025. The complaint alleges that despite this notice, the tenant failed to pay the outstanding balance or vacate the property.
The lawsuit seeks repossession of the store and significant monetary damages from both the corporation and its principals. The complaint names Michelle Meadows and Robert Meadows as individual defendants, citing personal guaranty agreements they executed to back the lease. The landlord is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, arguing that the guarantors are jointly and severally liable for the tenant’s financial obligations.
