City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- Citation
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- Parent Document
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1975-10-14
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
- City of St. Louis v. Goldenberg, 529 S.W.2d 33 (1975)
Full Text
1,028 charsGiven the condition of the property and the lack of prospect for rehabilitation, the receivers were not bound to relet the premises. If the apartments had been relet, new tenants could refuse to pay for unfit housing or vacate whenever they chose, King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.App.1973); therefore, the promise of future rents provided no basis to finance needed improvements. Appellant overlooks the receiver’s efforts to collect rents and keep the tenants, suggesting he should have sued to collect the rents. We are not im*38pressed with this argument since any action for rents would meet an affirmative defense that the condition of the let premises was in substantial violation of the applicable housing code and not habitable during the tenancy. See King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.App.1973). The tenants justifiably vacated and withheld further rents. The meager rent collected and the receiver’s inability to obtain financing, rendered futile any attempt to prevent vandalism or repair the vacant building.