Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)

Citation: Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
Parent Document: Chiodini v. Fox, 207 S.W.3d 174 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2006-10-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2273811/chiodini-v-fox/ ↗

Full Text

734 chars

In his third point on appeal, Chiodi-ni contends that the trial court erred in its calculation of damages. Chiodini argues that the lease addendum provided a compensation scale if certain construction items were not completed by the dates provided. It stated that Fox-Winkler could deduct $60 from their rent for each item not completed on time. Under this argument, Chiodini believes that $160 should be deducted from Fox-Winkler’s damage deposit because nearly everything on the list was completed as scheduled. But this argument is not supported by any authority, and furthermore, the record reflects that neither of the parties signed the addendum to the lease. Therefore, this point on appeal is without merit. Point denied. *178

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text