Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Citation
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Parent Document
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1984-12-04
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
Full Text
1,026 charsAt this point it should be noted that after termination of the fixed term in the written lease to First Capitol Sports Center, a notice to the tenant to quit the premises would not have been required. See § 441.070; Kilbourne v. Forester, 464 S.W.2d 770, 774 (Mo.App.1970). If the tenant holds over with some form of consent from the landlord or his agent, then the possession may ripen into a form of tenancy generally at will and for a period of time usually for a month or more depending on the intention of the parties as indicated by their actions. The lessee in this cause became a tenant at will on a month to month basis. Both parties agree as to the month to month tenancy but disagree as to whether the tenancy should be characterized as one “at will” or “by sufferance”. For a discussion of the distinction, See Kilbourne v. Forester, 464 S.W.2d at 775, 776. The difference is not a matter of concern in this appeal but it is clear that the hold over tenancy in this matter is one at will on a month to month basis.