Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Citation
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-12-08
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
- Gordon v. Williams, 986 S.W.2d 470 (1998)
Full Text
904 charsJAMES A. PUDLOWSKI, Presiding Judge. David Williams and his wife Ann Wimsatt d/b/a Wimsatt Williams Studio (Appellants) appeal the trial court’s judgment against them and in favor of Edwin Gordon and Dorothy Gordon d/b/a Gordon Properties (Respondents) in an unlawful detainer action. On August 14,1997, the court ordered Appellants to relinquish the premises and pay $34,-755.00 to Respondents. Subsequent to Appellants’s Motion to Correct Judgment, the court reduced Respondents’s damages to $22,221.89 on September 15, 1997. Appellants allege the trial court erred in that there was no evidence supporting a judgment of unlawful detainer because the Respondents failed to comply with the statutory and common law requirements of forfeiture.1 On cross appeal, Respondents allege the trial court’s Amended Judgment improperly reduced their recovery. We affirm the judgment and remand to the trial court.