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
1,097 charsFinally, in support of its argument, respondent cites Electronic Sales Engineers, Inc. v. The Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of the City of Paducah, et al., Ky., 477 S.W.2d 814 (1972). In Electronic, the Court said, “The fact that Electronic held over beyond the expiration of the original terms, accompanied by the payment and acceptance of rent, was not sufficient to effect a renewal of the original lease.” However, the facts of Electronic- do not support respondent’s argument. In Electronic, the tenant failed to properly renew a five-year lease. After remaining six months past the date that the five-year lease expired, the landlord served notice for the tenant to vacate. The eviction date was one year after the original lease expired, which is in accordance with KRS 383.160(1). Further, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Electronic that a one-year lease was in effect during the year following the expiration of the five-year lease. Therefore, even this case in fact supports movant’s argu*335ment that KRS 383.160(1) applies in such situations.