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
811 charsThis interpretation is consistent with the intent of the legislature in the enactment of § 535.300. The statute describes the landlord’s right to demand and receive a security deposit, but also imposes certain duties on him, including the return of the deposit at the termination of the tenancy. The statute is remedial because it was enacted for the protection of both the landlord and tenant, is conducive to the public good, and provides the tenant his exclusive remedy for the wrongful withholding of a security deposit. Therefore, when enforcement of the remedy is sought, the statute should be given a liberal construction to effect its plan purpose. See State ex rel. Webster v. Meyers, 779 S.W.2d 286, 289-90 (Mo.App. 1989) and Scheble v. Missouri Clean Water Comm’n, 734 S.W.2d 541, 556 (Mo.App. 1987).