section 954

Citation: section 954
Parent Document: Euclid Plaza Associates, L.L.C. v. African American Law Firm, L.L.C., 55 S.W.3d 446 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2001-09-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2335760/euclid-plaza-associates-llc-v-a... ↗

Full Text

833 chars

In their second point, Tenants assert that the trial court erred in finding that a month-to-month tenancy existed between Tenants and Purchaser at the rate of $2,033.33 per month. Their argument is based on two contentions: (1) that the lease with Prior Owner was not a preexisting lease, but was executed subsequent to the sale, making its terms binding on Purchaser; and (2) that Tenants agreed only to continue discussing the validity of the existing lease at a later date, not to the terms of a new lease. Tenants’ first contention, that the lease with Prior Owner was binding on Purchaser, has been disposed of in our analysis of point three, as we have concluded that the lease between Prior Owner and Tenants was invalid after the confirmation. See 72 Am.JüR.2d State and Local Taxation section 954; see also section 92.835.2.

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text