White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- Citation
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- Parent Document
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-06-18
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5274787/white-v-buntin/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
- White v. Buntin, 77 S.W.3d 702 (2002)
Full Text
840 charsThe trial court determined that purchasers were innocent purchasers who took title to the land without knowledge of the “secret” terms of the oral lease allowing tenant to remove fill dirt, driveways, and drain tiles. The court found that at no time did landowner or anyone ever disclose to purchasers anything about the removal of the fill dirt, driveways, and drain tiles, and there was no adjustment in the appraisal for their removal. The court found that those items were “affixed to” and were “an intricate part” of the real estate, and that “their removal would be very difficult and would substantially destroy the real estate and would render it useless and of- very little value to anyone.” It therefore granted purchasers immediate possession of the land, including the fill dirt, driveways, and drain tiles.1 Tenant now appeals.