Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Citation
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Parent Document
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1987-05-26
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
- Housing Authority of St. Louis County v. Lovejoy, 731 S.W.2d 510 (1987)
Full Text
711 charsDefendant’s position that Housing Authority’s petition is insufficient because Housing Authority neglected to plead it complied “with all applicable federal law and regulation” is untenable. Under Missouri law, failure to comply with applicable federal law is not an element of unlawful detainer which must be pleaded. It is more appropriately an affirmative defense which must be raised by defendant in the manner he chooses. Housing Authority did not have to frame its petition so as to anticipate and negate any affirmative defenses which defendant might raise. The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of its failure to plead compliance with the appropriate federal laws.