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
637 charsWe believe the legislature intended “wrongfully” to describe the result and not the wrongdoer’s conduct. The term “wrongfully” in the statute should not be read as describing the manner in which the security deposit was withheld, but should be interpreted as referring to the enumerated provisions immediately preceding paragraph 5. The phrase “in violation of this section” is the controlling language of paragraph 5 and dictates what is “wrongful.” If a landlord fails to return the security deposit in thirty days, and it is later discovered the tenant was rightfully entitled to the deposit, or a portion of it, the tenant is wronged