Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Citation
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-08-24
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
Full Text
521 charsA & F raises two points on appeal. First, A & F asserts the trial court erroneously granted Broken Heart’s motion for summary judgment because material facts were in dispute as to whether: (1) rent and other charges were due; and (2) A & F, which alleged it was fraudulently induced into signing the lease, was in lawful possession of the premises. A & F’s second point claims the trial court erred in striking A & F’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim, which pled that A & F was in lawful possession of the premises.