Nitardy, J. & L. v. Chabot, M.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 599 MDA 2017

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; September 14, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Strassburger, J. dissents from the Majority's decision regarding the sufficiency of the landlord's written list of damages and the landlord's counterclaim for damages. He believes the list minimally meets the requirements of 68 P.S. 250.512(a), which mandates that landlords provide tenants with a written list of damages within thirty days of lease termination, along with any remaining security deposit. The Act does not define "written list of damages," and there are no precedents interpreting this term. Strassburger agrees with the trial court's view that the landlord must assign specific values to the damages. He argues that the landlord's emailed "Updated List of Damages," which assigned monetary values to several items, qualifies as a written list under the statute. Although the landlord did not specify values for three items, the total estimated damages amounted to $4,054.37, exceeding the tenants' security deposit of $3,600. Strassburger supports the Majority’s conclusions on other issues, such as the oral lease modification and the inapplicability of the safe harbor provision in 68 P.S. 250.512(e).

Subsection 250.512(a) mandates that landlords promptly return any security deposit amounts exceeding actual damages. In this case, although the landlord's damage estimates were higher than the security deposit, the absence of detailed estimates for each damage item does not invalidate the list's compliance with the statute. While some descriptions lacked clarity, the overall communication and context provided sufficient notice to the tenants regarding the alleged damages. For instance, the landlord's vague reference to a 'foyer fix' is clarified by previous detailed descriptions of the foyer's condition.

The trial court erred in ruling that the landlord did not provide a timely and compliant written list of damages per subsection 250.512(a). The argument that the legislature intended a higher level of specificity is unsupported. Additionally, the thirty-day period for landlords to provide damage estimates is often insufficient for gathering contractor estimates, particularly for significant property damage. Therefore, the landlord's Updated List of Damages meets the minimum requirements of the statute.

The dissent also disagrees with the Majority's remand instructions and interpretation of the consequences of noncompliance. The Majority asserts that tenants are entitled to double their security deposit minus actual expenses if the landlord's compliance is deemed insufficient. It instructs the trial court to evaluate the landlord's proof of actual damages and reasonable repair costs. The dissent contends that the Majority's conclusions misinterpret the statute and overlook the requirements of subsection 250.512(b), which outlines the consequences of failing to follow subsection 250.512(a), specifically the need for a written damages list and the return of any surplus deposit.

Landlords must provide a written list of damages within thirty days to maintain their right to withhold any portion of the security deposit held in escrow or to sue tenants for damages. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of these rights, allowing tenants to recover the full security deposit. If a landlord does not return the difference between the security deposit and actual damages within thirty days after lease termination, they become liable for double the amount that exceeds actual damages as determined by a court. The burden of proof for actual damages rests on the landlord. If the landlord fails to provide a sufficient written list, they cannot recover damages in a counterclaim and must return the full security deposit amount. If the landlord proves damages exceeding the deposit, they can avoid double damages; however, they cannot recover compensation for damages if they forfeited their rights. Conversely, if damages are less than the deposit, the landlord owes the difference, which will also be doubled. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to protect tenants' rights regarding the timely return of security deposits or providing a valid explanation for withholding them.