Section 535
- Citation
- Section 535
- Parent Document
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1987-12-22
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- 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
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
1,338 charsThe evidence here clearly shows that respondent breached its lease agreement with appellants in failing to deliver possession of the apartment upon the orally modified date of June 4, 1984, which was acquiesced in by appellants. On May 30, 1984, Kim was informed that they could not take possession until June 14, and was then told by Gibson that the security deposit was not being returned, as she requested, because it was being used for rent until the apartment was re-rented. Significantly, as the evidence shows, the instant apartment was re-rented two days later, June 1, 1984, to Kenny and Cindy Paul, at the same monthly rental, and the Pauls paid their security deposit on their lease. These facts show that the initial lease agreement between appellants and respondent was mutually cancelled or rescinded by them before any inception of possession or occupancy. Thus, there was no obligation on the part of appellants to pay any rent thereafter, and the retention of their security deposit thereafter could have been deemed to be wrongful by a jury, inasmuch as the apartment had been re-rented for the same initial term as appellants’ lease, and there could be no right of set-off for *707any unpaid rent, or for any damages occasioned by acts of appellants since they had never been in possession or occupancy of the premises.