PDQ Tower Services, Inc. v. Adams, 213 S.W.3d 697 (2007)

Citation: PDQ Tower Services, Inc. v. Adams, 213 S.W.3d 697 (2007)
Parent Document: PDQ Tower Services, Inc. v. Adams, 213 S.W.3d 697 (2007)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2007-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2333350/pdq-tower-services-inc-v-adams/ ↗

Full Text

1,454 chars

Throughout the statute, the legislature references the leased property as the “dwelling unit” rather than using broad terms such as “leased property” or “premises,” indicating that “dwelling unit” implies the exclusion of the non-dwelling unit. For example, section 535.300.3 allows the landlord to retain some of the security deposit for the following reasons: (1) to remedy default in payment of rent, (2) “[t]o restore the dwelling unit to its condition at the commencement of the tenancy, ordinary wear and tear excepted,” or (3) to compensate for actual damages sustained from the tenant failing to give notice before terminating tenancy. Additionally, section 535.300.4 requires the landlord to “give the tenant or his representative reasonable notice ... of the date and time when the landlord will inspect the dwelling unit” and gives the tenant “the right to be present at the inspection of the dwelling unit.” Furthermore, the legislature defines “security deposit” as “any deposit of money or property, however denominated, which is furnished by a tenant to a landlord to secure the performance of any part of the rental agreement, including damages to the dwelling unit” but excludes “money or property denominated as a deposit for a pet on the premises.” § 535.300.7. Appropriately read in context of the entire statute, it is clear that the legislature used “dwelling unit” as the exclusive type of leased property for this specific remedy.

Other Sections in This Document (29)

Full Text