Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Citation
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-23
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
Full Text
1,163 charssublease, clearly constituted a transfer of Park’s entire interest in the leased premises without retention of any reversionary interest on his part. The consent agreement was for the balance of the lease term and included a provision for an additional option in favor of Thomas upon a renegotiated rent. Park retained no right of reentry into or onto the premises for breach of any of the covenants of the consent agreement. Moreover, the consent agreement imposed additional and increased obligations on Thomas over and above those contained in the lease itself. Finally, the lease payments were made directly from Thomas to the original lessor, the Siragusas. The consent agreement called for no payment to be made to Park. Thus, Park conveyed the entire term and parted with all reversionary interest in the property, and as a result, the consent agreement constituted an assignment by Park to Thomas, with the consent of the Siragusas. Moreover, as a complete assignment, Park was no longer entitled to the benefit of the default notice provision contained in the original lease, but rather, Thomas, as assignee, was the one to whom such notice was required.