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
664 charsAlthough a landowner can enter into an agreement with another that what would normally be a fixture will remain as personalty, such an agreement cannot be given effect against the rights of intervening third parties without notice. Id.; Goff v. Case, 17 S.W.3d 574 (Mo.App.2000). Purchasers here were intervening third parties who were not bound by any agreement between landowner and tenant unless purchasers had notice of the alleged oral agreement to remove the fixtures. The issue in the present case, therefore, is what was necessary to charge the purchasers with, notice of the oral agreement between the landlord and the tenant allowing removal of fixtures.