Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Citation
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1992-06-16
Other Sections in This Document (38)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (1992)
Full Text
537 charsApproximately four days after plaintiff filed the claim, he received a letter from defendant with an enclosed check for $110.00, representing a further refund of the withheld portion of plaintiff’s deposit. The letter was dated two days following expiration of the thirty day statutory period. The refund represented charges assessed that plaintiff had attempted to inform defendant were for pre-existing damages. In defendant’s accompanying letter he stated “if we find we are wrong [in the security deposit withholding] we correct it.”