BOXDORFER v. Payne

Missouri Court of Appeals

BOXDORFER v. Payne

91 S.W.3d 117, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1950, 2002 WL 31109593

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 2002

DocketED 80366

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.W.3d 117 (BOXDORFER v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BOXDORFER v. Payne, 91 S.W.3d 117, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1950, 2002 WL 31109593 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Payne (Lessee) appeals from a judgment entered against her for rent and damages in the sum of $2,050. Lessee argues the trial court erred in (1) determining Alice Boxdorfer (Lessor) was entitled to possession of the leased premises on March 22, 2001, as a matter of law; (2) holding Lessor’s termination notice provided one month’s notice before expiration of the lease, as required under Section 441.060, RSMo 2000; (3) not requiring the unlawful detainer petition to be notarized; (4) awarding Lessor damages for expenditures to clean, repair, and renovate the leased premises; (5) awarding Lessor damages in the amount of $2,050; (6) awarding Lessor damages well over and above what would be ordinary wear and tear; (7) awarding Lessor damages not based on evidence of fair market value; and (8) awarding Lessor damages that unjustly enriched her. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Payne (Lessee) appeals from a judgment entered against her for rent and damages in the sum of $2,050. Lessee argues the trial court erred in (1) determining Alice Boxdorfer (Lessor) was entitled to possession of the leased premises on March 22, 2001, as a matter of law; (2) holding Lessor’s termination notice provided one month’s notice before expiration of the lease, as required under Section 441.060, RSMo 2000; (3) not requiring the unlawful detainer petition to be notarized; (4) awarding Lessor damages for expenditures to clean, repair, and renovate the leased premises; (5) awarding Lessor damages in the amount of $2,050; (6) awarding Lessor damages well over and above what would be ordinary wear and tear; (7) awarding Lessor damages not based on evidence of fair market value; and (8) awarding Lessor damages that unjustly enriched her. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 117, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1950, 2002 WL 31109593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boxdorfer-v-payne-moctapp-2002.