Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)

Citation: Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)
Parent Document: Robin Farms, Inc. v. Bartholome, 989 S.W.2d 238 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1999-04-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2453209/robin-farms-inc-v-bartholome/ ↗

Full Text

1,065 chars

As to the elements of proof as to the respondents’ claim for ejectment, there is no dispute that Robin Farms was in actual possession of the farm at the time the action for ejectment was brought. The dispute centers on the second proof element, that the respondents were legally entitled to possession of the farm. In this respect, the respondents alleged in their motion for summary judgment that, under the undisputed facts, they were legally entitled to possession of the farm because: (1) they owned the farm; (2) their lessee, Harlow Fay, was not legally entitled to possession of the farm because it had breached the express terms of its lease with the respondents by assigning it to Robin Farms without their express written consent, causing the lease to be in default; and (3) Robin Farms was not legally entitled to possession of the farm because Harlow Fay’s assignment to it of its lease without the respondents’ express written consent was void, creating no legal tenancy in Robin Farms, requiring statutory notice to it to terminate or quit possession.

Other Sections in This Document (172)

Full Text