Section 535

Citation: Section 535
Parent Document: Younker v. Investment Realty, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 1 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2015-02-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5445505/younker-v-investment-realty-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,638 chars

Property Owners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law only if the uncon-troverted facts demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether the non-refunded amounts of the Tenants’ security deposits were expended by Property Owners for one of the three purposes authorized by section 535.300.3. There are no facts in the summary judgment record supporting that Property Owners expended any part of the security deposits for the first or third authorized purposes under section 535.300.3. While the second purpose in that subsection authorizes Property Owners to expend security deposit funds “[t]o restore the dwelling unit to its condition at the commencement of the tenancy,” it also places an “ordinary wear and tear excepted” limitation on that authority. It was, therefore, incumbent upon Property Owners to demonstrate that, based upon the summary judgment record, there is no genuine issue of fact that the non-refunded security deposits were not expended to remedy “ordinary wear and tear.” They have failed to do so, primarily because they were focused upon demonstrating there was no genuine issue of fact that their expenditures were in accordance with the terms of the lease agreements.15 As discussed infra, the provisions in the lease agreements were immaterial as to whether Property Owners were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because their expenditure of Tenants’ security deposits were in accordance with the requirements of section 535.300.3. Tenants’ first point is granted, and the trial court’s judgment granting Property Owners’ motion for summary judgment in full is reversed.

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text