Section 535
- Citation
- Section 535
- Parent Document
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
549 charsBecause § 535.300 created a new right and provided an adequate remedy for tenants when a landlord wrongfully fails to return a security deposit, the court held that the appellants were confined to the remedy provided in § 535.300.5 and could not maintain an action for conversion. The subject of claims for the refund of tenants’ security deposits was preempted by the legislative enactment which created the rights and obligations and limited the allowance of damages to not more than twice the amount of the deposit. Id. Likewise, PE Si’s claims 2