Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Citation
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1992-12-17
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
- Masterson v. DeHart Paint & Varnish Co., 843 S.W.2d 332 (1992)
Full Text
634 charsSuit was brought for rent for that seven-month period. The trial court dismissed the claim for rent, stating that the terms of the lease allowed for extension only upon written notice and that KRS 383.160(1) did not apply because it was “an equity statute for protection of tenants.” The Court of Appeals affirmed, writing that the expressed terms of the contract dictated how the lease could be extended. The majority stated that KRS 383.160(1) only applied in cases where the parties’ lease failed to address the issue. In this case, they went on to state, the lease terms covered the situation and, thus, the statute did not apply-