Section 535
- Citation
- Section 535
- Parent Document
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
941 charsIn its petition, PESI alleged that it had leased a townhouse from the defendants. Section 535.300.7 provides: “the term ‘security deposit’ means any deposit of money or property, however denominated, which is furnished by a tenant to a landlord to secure the performance of any part of the rental agreement, including damages to the dwelling unit.” (second emphasis added). In § 535.-300, the term “dwelling unit” is also used in three other instances. § 535.300.3(2); § 535.300.4 (twice). Chapter 535 does not define “dwelling unit” but an instructive definition is found in Chapter 441, which is titled Landlord and Tenant. Section 441.500.(5), RSMo Cum.Supp.1992 defines a “dwelling unit” as “every premises or part thereof occupied, used, or held out for use and occupancy as a place of abode for human beings, whether occupied or vacant.” We interpret words within a statute according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Burke v. Kehr,