ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has reversed part of a Franklin County trial court judgment and entered a $24,000 judgment in favor of Lifetime Property Investments, concluding that a restaurant operator unlawfully remained on commercial property after its tenancy had been terminated.
In a decision filed June 16, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of several claims brought by Lifetime Property Investments against DKIS, RMSM and Rebecca Medlin, but found the lower court incorrectly applied Missouri law when it determined that Lifetime had failed to properly notify DKIS that its tenancy was ending.
Judge Michael E. Gardner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, held that Lifetime provided sufficient notice to terminate DKIS’s tenancy and was entitled to prevail on its unlawful detainer claim.
The court reversed the trial court’s denial of that claim and entered judgment for Lifetime in the amount of $24,000, representing double rent for four months during which DKIS remained on the property after the tenancy ended.
According to the opinion, Lifetime leased commercial property to RMSM under a written five-year lease that was scheduled to expire on March 1, 2022, with monthly rent set at $3,000.
RMSM operated the Du Kum Inn restaurant at the location until November 2019, when DKIS purchased RMSM and became its sole member.
Beginning in January 2020, DKIS paid the rent and continued operating the restaurant.
The dispute centered on whether DKIS had received legally sufficient notice that its tenancy would terminate.
In November 2021, Medlin requested written confirmation of what she described as a verbal agreement extending the lease by three months.
Lifetime’s owner responded that a letter had already been sent concerning the conclusion of the lease term.
Although that Nov. 9, 2021, letter was not introduced at trial, later correspondence acknowledged that it advised DKIS the lease would expire at midnight on Feb. 28, 2022.
In January 2022, DKIS wrote to Lifetime, asserting that an extension had previously been agreed upon and offering to prepay rent through June 2022.
Lifetime subsequently sent another letter advising DKIS of obligations under the lease and stating that any periodic tenancy was being terminated with 30 days’ written notice.
DKIS acknowledged receiving the letter and agreed that it communicated that the premises had to be vacated upon termination, but the company did not leave the property.
Lifetime filed suit in December 2022, alleging unlawful detainer, breach of contract, trespass, waste and seeking to pierce the corporate veils of RMSM and DKIS to impose liability on Medlin.
The company sought possession of the property and double rent damages. After the lawsuit was filed, DKIS attempted to continue paying rent, but Lifetime returned the checks. DKIS eventually vacated the property at the end of June 2022.
Following a bench trial, the circuit court rejected all of Lifetime’s claims. The court found RMSM did not have the property after DKIS acquired it and concluded RMSM committed no wrongful acts.
Although the trial court determined the written lease had never been assigned to DKIS, it found DKIS nevertheless had a tenancy with Lifetime.
The court ruled Lifetime had failed to provide notice in the manner required by Section 534.050 and therefore could not pursue unlawful detainer. It awarded Lifetime only $12,000 in unpaid rent covering March through June 2022.
The appellate court disagreed with that analysis. It explained that Section 534.050 governs the method of delivering a demand for possession to a particular category of occupants identified as “intruders.”
Because both sides agreed that DKIS was not an intruder, the court held that those requirements did not apply.
Instead, the relevant issue was whether DKIS, as a month-to-month tenant, received the written notice required under Section 441.060.3.
The court concluded that Lifetime’s Nov. 9, 2021, letter satisfied that requirement because it was written and provided more than one month’s notice of Lifetime’s intention to terminate the tenancy.
The judges rejected DKIS’s argument that the notice was ineffective because it referred to the expiration of the written lease rather than explicitly describing the tenancy as month-to-month.
The opinion stated that the correspondence demonstrated DKIS clearly understood that Lifetime intended to end whatever tenancy existed and reclaim possession of the property.
Having determined the tenancy was properly terminated, the court held that DKIS’s continued possession beyond Feb. 28, 2022, constituted unlawful detainer.
Because Missouri law provides for double rent damages in such circumstances, the court entered judgment for Lifetime in the amount of $24,000.
The appellate court otherwise affirmed the trial court’s judgment, leaving intact the dismissal of Lifetime’s claims for breach of contract, trespass, waste and piercing the corporate veil.
The court also denied Lifetime’s request for attorney fees, finding that the lease provisions cited by Lifetime did not apply to DKIS or Medlin and provided no basis for recovery against RMSM.
The judgment denying Lifetime’s unlawful detainer claim against DKIS and awarding only $12,000 was reversed and judgment was entered in favor of Lifetime on the unlawful detainer claim for $24,000.
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District: ED113432
