Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Citation
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-10-03
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1878345/smith-v-thomas/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
- Smith v. Thomas, 210 S.W.3d 241 (2006)
Full Text
540 charsRespondents testified that the personal items, furniture, food, and trash found in the house were not theirs. They stated that the lease had required them to accept the property “as is” and that most of the personal items and furniture contained in the pictures were present in the house when they took up residence. The evidence further reflects that, while Respondents vacated the premises on May 29, 2004, Appellant did not inspect the property until August 2004 and that the doors to the farmhouse had been left unlocked in the interim.