OPINION SUMMARY
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT
OHM PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, ) No. ED92635
)
)
v. )
) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
CENTREC CARE, INC., ) St. Louis County
MEDICAL RESOLUTIONS, INC., and )
M.A. KABIR PSYCHIATRY, INC., )
Defendant/Appellants. ) Filed: December 1, 2009
Centrec Care, Inc. (Centrec Care) and Medical Resolutions, Inc. (MRI) appeal from the trial court’s judgment finding that the original lease for office space between Centrec Care and MRI as tenants and OHM Properties, LLC as landlord terminated on December 31, 2008, and that the option to renew the original lease was invalid and unenforceable because both tenants were required to, but could not, exercise the option to renew the lease.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Division Four holds: A plain reading of Section 351.488.3, RSMo 2000, makes clear that reinstatement of a dissolved corporation relates back to the date of administrative dissolution, giving the statute both retroactive and prospective application. Thus, MRI had the requisite legal capacity to extend the lease agreement when it signed the Option to Renew the lease on January 10, 2008. MRI’s action in signing the Option to Renew occurred between the date of dissolution and the date MRI was reinstated. Because MRI's actions relate back to the date of dissolution, the actions are held as valid acts of the original MRI corporation. Accordingly, MRI and Centrec Care both timely executed the Option to Renew the lease. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter an order consistent with this opinion.[1]
Opinion by: Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J. George W. Draper III, J. and Roy L. Richter, J., Concurs.
Attorney for Appellant: James A. Beckemeier and Michael J. Payne
Attorneys for Respondent: Jay K. Kanzler, Jr., Christopher Kanzler and Brian Massimino
THIS SUMMARY IS NOT PART OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT. IT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE READER AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.
[1] Respondent’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal, which was filed on November 10, 2009, and was taken with the case, is denied.