Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Citation
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Parent Document
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1984-12-04
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
Full Text
1,097 charsIt is agreed that a properly designated agent could serve notice to terminate a tenancy. But appellant argues that such an agency must be clearly authorized and his actions ratified. Appellant emphasizes the fact that Roy Thoele represented himself to be the owner in the written lease and in the termination notice. From this, appellant argues that Thoele is not a proper agent and is barred from contradicting his written assertion of ownership. However, the trial court had before it not only the documents in which Thoele was improperly designated as owner, it also had sufficient evidence of Thoele’s actions as agent over a period of years, acting with the approval of the trustee, in all aspects of managing the property. The improper designation of title by Thoele does not bar or invalidate his actions as agent during the term of the written lease and in the hold over tenancy. It would seem incongruous to permit the tenant to rely on the acts of the agent Thoele to establish a month to month hold over tenancy yet deny that same agent authority to order termination of such a tenancy.