St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- Citation
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- Parent Document
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1983-08-30
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
- St. Louis Housing Authority v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 390 (1983)
Full Text
930 charsAppellant contends that respondent failed to properly terminate the lease. The lease stated that “[tjenant shall continue to occupy the premises ... until terminated by Tenant or Management, pursuant to the provisions .... ” The lease requires respondent to supply a written notice terminating the lease including “a full statement of the reason for the action.” The policy behind this clause is to give the tenant notice of the reason or reasons for the eviction and for an opportunity to prepare a rebuttal for an answer to the allegations. The reasons cited by respondent were not sufficient to satisfy this purpose. Bare recitations of lease provisions do not inform a defendant of specific actions or omissions. The termination notice completely failed to notify appellant of the allegations against her nor give her an opportunity to defend against them. Appellant was at a complete loss to counter respondent’s allegations.