DEBORAH A. STRATMAN and TIMOTHY M. STRATMAN, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. HAZEL I. WAGNER
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 472
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lessors (Deborah and Timothy Stratman) owned a house leased in 2008 to Leonard E. Wagner and Hazel I. Wagner under a written “House Lease” for the lifetimes of both lessees, with a clause allowing Lessor to terminate if either lessee "does not live there for sixty (60) continuous days."
- Leonard died December 1, 2010; Lessors alleged he had not lived in the house since that date.
- Lessors sent written notice on January 20, 2011 stating they would terminate the leasing relationship and shut the house on May 1, 2011; Tenant (Hazel) remained in possession after that date.
- Lessors sued for unlawful detainer; after an initial adverse judgment they sought a trial de novo and moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Lessors for immediate possession; Tenant appealed, arguing (1) Lessors didn’t plead/prove the termination condition was met, and (2) the lease language was ambiguous and required proof that a lessee physically moved out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stratman) | Defendant's Argument (Wagner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease provision permitting early termination is ambiguous | Lease language is plain and permits Lessors to terminate when either lessee "does not live there" for 60 days; death satisfies that condition | Phrase is ambiguous and should be read to require a lessee to have moved out (not merely died) to trigger termination | Clause is unambiguous; death satisfied the condition and authorized termination |
| Whether Lessors pleaded and proved the condition for termination | Verified complaint and uncontroverted facts allege Leonard’s death and that he had not lived there since Dec. 1, 2010; notice given; Tenant remained after May 1, 2011 | Lessors failed to plead or prove the condition had been met | Lessors sufficiently pled and proved the condition; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid–America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards)
- State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. banc 2006) (contract interpretation: give words their plain, ordinary meaning)
- Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706 (Mo. banc 2005) (contract intent determined from contract unless ambiguous)
- Brittany Sobery Family Ltd. P’ship v. Coinmach Corp., 392 S.W.3d 46 (Mo. App. 2013) (lease interpretation follows contract construction rules)
- ATC Co., Inc. v. Myatt, 389 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. 2013) (ambiguity must arise from the four corners; extrinsic evidence only if ambiguous)