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
731 charsPark further contends that even if the consent agreement was an assignment, he was still entitled to notice of the default, and/or the re-letting first to Wallace and then to Watters. Park is, in effect, still contending that he was entitled to written notice. While he may not have been given written notice of these events, there is evidence in the record that Michael Siragusa contacted him in person and by telephone about the default and that Park merely replied that he had already lost enough money and would not pay any more rent. Although Park denied having had these contacts, we infer that the trial court believed it because it is consistent with the judgment. MEA Inc. v. Pointer, 869 S.W.2d at 111; Brawley v. McNary,