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
807 charsAppellants next argue that Respondents’ unlawful detainer action must fail because the July 1, 1996, demand for possession and notice of termination4 complied with neither the provisions of Section 534.050 RSMo 1994 nor common law requirements. Section 534.050 RSMo 1994 provides that the demand required by Section 534.030 “shall be made either by delivering a copy of such demand to the person in possession, or by leaving such copy with some person above the age of fifteen years....” Respondents attempted to hand deliver the documents during business hours, slipped them under the door when no one answered and simultaneously sent them by certified mail. Appellants acknowledged receipt on July 2, 1996, but argue Respondents failed to comply with the service requirements of Section 534.050 RSMo 1994.