renewal clause in Missouri

2017The City relies on Software A.G. of North America, Inc. v. City of Columbia, 903 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. App. 1995), to argue that the renewal clause in the lease should not be interpreted to allow the lease in this case to continue forever or even for another 30 years on the same terms and conditions in violation of the City Charter.

2011Regardless of whether the original order of protection was granted by consent or following a hearing and presentation of evidence, in order to grant a renewal, the trial court was required only to evaluate whether expiration of the original order would result in the petitioner being placed in an “immediate and present danger of abuse.” Capps, 715 S.W.2d at 552 .

1987Rosenberg v. Gas Service Company, 363 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App. 1962).

1980Cita tion by the defendant of State v. Crowley, supra, does not aid the defendant.

1956The court said: “Suffice it to say that the courts of this state are inclined to disregard the distinction between a renewal and an extension unless the execution of a new lease is specifically required, in which event the distinction is recognized, at least if the terms and conditions of the new tenancy are to differ materially from those of the old.” In Krall v. Light, 240 Mo.App. 480 , 210 S.W.2d 739, 742 , this court had for construction (with other points) a renewal clause in a 25 year lease, which read: “Privilege of renewal of lease at expiration, * * * is hereby granted party of second

1956The court said: “Suffice it to say that the courts of this state are inclined to disregard the distinction between a renewal and an extension unless the execution of a new lease is specifically required, in which event the distinction is recognized, at least if the terms and conditions of the new tenancy are to differ materially from those of the old.” In Krall v. Light, 240 Mo.App. 480 , 210 S.W.2d 739, 742 , this court had for construction (with other points) a renewal clause in a 25 year lease, which read: “Privilege of renewal of lease at expiration, * * * is hereby granted party of second

1922Our Supreme Court in cases involving options for renewal in leases have adherred to the view, that there is no practical difference between the privilege of a renewal and an extension, so far as time of exercising the option is concerned. [Insurance and Law Building Company v. National Bank of the State of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 335 ; Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, 200 Mo. App. 613 , 208 S.W. 484 ; The Insurance and Law Building Company v. The National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58 ; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 469 , 203 S.W. 637 ; Howell v. City of Hamburg,

1922Our Supreme Court in cases involving options for renewal in leases have adherred to the view, that there is no practical difference between the privilege of a renewal and an extension, so far as time of exercising the option is concerned. [Insurance and Law Building Company v. National Bank of the State of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 335 ; Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, 200 Mo. App. 613 , 208 S.W. 484 ; The Insurance and Law Building Company v. The National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58 ; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 469 , 203 S.W. 637 ; Howell v. City of Hamburg,

1922Our Supreme Court in cases involving options for renewal in leases have adherred to the view, that there is no practical difference between the privilege of a renewal and an extension, so far as time of exercising the option is concerned. [Insurance and Law Building Company v. National Bank of the State of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 335 ; Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, 200 Mo. App. 613 , 208 S.W. 484 ; The Insurance and Law Building Company v. The National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58 ; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 469 , 203 S.W. 637 ; Howell v. City of Hamburg,

1922Our Supreme Court in cases involving options for renewal in leases have adherred to the view, that there is no practical difference between the privilege of a renewal and an extension, so far as time of exercising the option is concerned. [Insurance and Law Building Company v. National Bank of the State of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 335 ; Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, 200 Mo. App. 613 , 208 S.W. 484 ; The Insurance and Law Building Company v. The National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58 ; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 469 , 203 S.W. 637 ; Howell v. City of Hamburg,

1922Our Supreme Court in cases involving options for renewal in leases have adherred to the view, that there is no practical difference between the privilege of a renewal and an extension, so far as time of exercising the option is concerned. [Insurance and Law Building Company v. National Bank of the State of Missouri, 5 Mo. App. 335 ; Blanchon and Bartholomees v. Kellerstrass Distilling Corporation, 200 Mo. App. 613 , 208 S.W. 484 ; The Insurance and Law Building Company v. The National Bank of Missouri, 71 Mo. 58 ; Medicus v. Altman, 199 Mo. App. 469 , 203 S.W. 637 ; Howell v. City of Hamburg,

1919When that is the situation, the finding cannot prevail. [In re Lankford’s estate, 197 S. W. 147 ; Orchard v. Smith, 193 S. W. 574 , 577.] At any rate, if we are correct in our view that the tenancy was under the renewal privilege in the lease, the breaking of the elevator did not absolve the defendant from the obligation to pay rent. [Kennedy v. Watts, 142 Mo. App. 103 ; Sedalia Planing, etc., Co. v. Swift & Co., 129 Mo. App. 471 .] We are asked to reverse and remand the cause with directions to render judgment, hut manifestly we cannot do so for the reason that we cannot say what a repair of

1919When that is the situation, the finding cannot prevail. [In re Lankford’s estate, 197 S. W. 147 ; Orchard v. Smith, 193 S. W. 574 , 577.] At any rate, if we are correct in our view that the tenancy was under the renewal privilege in the lease, the breaking of the elevator did not absolve the defendant from the obligation to pay rent. [Kennedy v. Watts, 142 Mo. App. 103 ; Sedalia Planing, etc., Co. v. Swift & Co., 129 Mo. App. 471 .] We are asked to reverse and remand the cause with directions to render judgment, hut manifestly we cannot do so for the reason that we cannot say what a repair of

1919When that is the situation, the finding cannot prevail. [In re Lankford’s estate, 197 S. W. 147 ; Orchard v. Smith, 193 S. W. 574 , 577.] At any rate, if we are correct in our view that the tenancy was under the renewal privilege in the lease, the breaking of the elevator did not absolve the defendant from the obligation to pay rent. [Kennedy v. Watts, 142 Mo. App. 103 ; Sedalia Planing, etc., Co. v. Swift & Co., 129 Mo. App. 471 .] We are asked to reverse and remand the cause with directions to render judgment, hut manifestly we cannot do so for the reason that we cannot say what a repair of