CHRISTINE O'CONNELL and GREG O'CONNELL, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. LEECHIA RAQUEL DEERING
SD36872
Mo. Ct. App.Jul 27, 2021Background
- Deering signed a 12-month residential lease (Apr 1, 2019–Mar 31, 2020) containing a hold‑over clause stating that if tenant remained in possession after expiration she would become a month‑to‑month tenant.
- Landlords (the O’Connells) sent letters/texts in March–May 2020 setting various short move‑out dates (Apr 15, Apr 30, May 15, May 25); Deering did not sign the letters; landlords accepted April and May rent (two $395 payments) but later refused June rent.
- Landlords filed an unlawful detainer action on June 8, 2020 seeking immediate possession, unpaid rent, late fees, and attorney fees; trial court found for landlords and awarded possession, $7,888.50 (including unpaid rent, late fees, and attorney fees).
- Deering appealed arguing she was a month‑to‑month tenant by the lease terms and landlords failed to give the one‑month written notice required by section 441.060.
- Appellate court held Deering became a month‑to‑month tenant by the lease; the notices (letters, text, call) did not provide the statutory one‑month written notice and were invalid; landlords were therefore not entitled to possession, attorney fees, or late fees, but were entitled to unpaid rent for the hold‑over period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (O'Connells) | Defendant's Argument (Deering) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenant became month‑to‑month after lease expired | Lease was not converted to month‑to‑month; parties agreed only to short extensions | Lease contained an express hold‑over clause that automatically created a month‑to‑month tenancy | Tenant became month‑to‑month per the lease hold‑over clause |
| Whether one‑month written notice under §441.060 was required and was given | Notices and extensions were sufficient to terminate tenancy | Statute requires one month’s written notice; letters/text/phone calls were insufficient | Notices were invalid; statutory one‑month written notice was not given |
| Whether landlords were entitled to immediate possession via unlawful detainer | Landlords validly terminated tenancy and were entitled to possession | Tenant lawfully remained in possession as month‑to‑month tenant | Judgment for possession reversed; tenant lawfully remained during hold‑over |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and late fees | Lease allows recovery of attorneys’ fees and late fees | Landlords were not entitled because unlawful detainer failed and landlords accepted rent | Attorney fees and late fees vacated; landlords only awarded unpaid rent (remand to correct amount and address costs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tower Properties Co. v. Allen, 33 S.W.3d 684 (Mo. App. 2000) (hold‑over lease provision converts occupancy to month‑to‑month)
- Davidson v. Kenney, 971 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. App. 1998) (one‑month written notice requirement strictly construed; notices giving less than a full rental period are invalid)
- Fisher v. Payton, 219 S.W.2d 293 (Mo. App. 1949) (landlord must prove strict compliance with statutory notice requirements)
- Cusumano v. Outdoors Today, Inc., 608 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. App. 1980) (hold‑over without a lease hold‑over clause requires landlord indication of consent to new tenancy)
- Harris v. Union Elec. Co., 766 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. banc 1989) (American Rule for attorney fees; contractual exceptions strictly applied)
- Becker Glove Int’l, Inc. v. Jack Dubinsky & Sons, 41 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2001) (affirmative defenses must be raised in writing by the return date under chapter 517 procedure)