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
1,037 charsA & F concedes that affirmative defenses and counterclaims are generally not allowed in unlawful detainer actions. A & F further acknowledges that at this stage, the issue of possession is moot, since A & F has vacated the premises and does not desire to reoccupy them. Still, A & F urges an exception to the general rule should be made in this case, and its affirmative defenses and counterclaims should be heard on the issue of damages, because a number of the affirmative defenses involve the question of whether A & F’s expenditures on improvements made to the premises have “paid for” the rental obligations under the lease. Broken Heart responds that there is no basis for an exception here, since equitable claims of offset cannot be interposed as an affirmative defense or counterclaim. Further, Broken Heart points out that A & F has a remedy available to pursue its claims against Broken Heart through A & F’s pending causes of action against Broken Heart for fraudulent misrepresentation, reformation and declaratory judgment.