## Facts

- Landlord Marvin C. Nieberg leased an apartment to Sidney and Margaret Gee under a one-year written lease executed July 18, 1969, with occupancy beginning August 1, 1969.
- Monthly rent was $315; the Gees paid $315 in advance as a security deposit refundable at lease expiration if they performed the lease covenants.
- After paying eleven months’ rent, the Gees vacated on July 28, 1970.
- The Gees claimed the parties later made an oral agreement terminating the final month of the lease, entitling them to return of the $315 deposit.
- Nieberg denied any oral termination and treated the deposit as the final month’s rent.
- The dispute arose in the context of ongoing friction between the parties concerning the Gees’ children’s behavior at the apartment complex pool.

## Issues

1. Whether the parol evidence rule barred testimony about a subsequent oral agreement terminating a written lease.
2. Whether an oral agreement terminating or releasing parties from a lease required new consideration and, if so, whether consideration existed.
3. Whether an oral agreement terminating the remaining month of a one-year lease was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed a judgment awarding the Gees $315 plus interest.
- Parol evidence of a later oral agreement was admissible because the parol evidence rule bars only prior or contemporaneous agreements used to vary a writing.
- The oral termination was a new contract supported by sufficient consideration.
- The Statute of Frauds did not bar enforcement of the supported oral termination of the remaining short term.

## Legal Principles

- The parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence of a subsequent agreement that alters or abrogates a prior written contract.
- An agreement to terminate or release a party from an existing contract is a new contract and must be supported by new consideration.
- A written lease may be orally rescinded where the rescission agreement is subsequent, supported by consideration, and does not offend the Statute of Frauds as applied to the unexpired term.

## Conclusion

The court held that a written lease may be ended by a later oral termination agreement supported by consideration, and that such an agreement may be proven by parol evidence and enforced without violating the Statute of Frauds, entitling the tenants to return of their security deposit with interest.


Gee v. Nieberg, 501 S.W.2d 542 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973)