Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 2, 2010; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Monty Ervin is held liable to Jennifer Stackhouse for violations of the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Stackhouse entered a "Transient Week to Week Lease Agreement" with Ervin and Southern Realty on December 27, 2007, agreeing to pay a $100 security deposit and weekly rent of $100, which covered certain utilities. The lease required an additional $300 pet-deposit fee for any indoor pets, with Stackhouse having a utility allotment of $100 per month.
On January 25, 2008, Stackhouse paid her rent, but on January 26, Ervin's secretary informed her of a violation regarding the pet-deposit fee, demanding $600 by January 28 or her electricity would be disconnected. Ervin disconnected the electricity on January 28, reinstated it, then disconnected it again on January 31. Stackhouse filed a complaint on February 1, 2008, seeking injunctive relief and damages for wrongful eviction, which was transferred to the Houston Circuit Court. A temporary injunction against her eviction was granted.
On February 4, 2008, Ervin initiated an unlawful-detainer action claiming violation of the pet-deposit provision, leading to further legal proceedings. Stackhouse was incarcerated from February until March 14, 2008, during which time her apartment was vandalized. Despite a preliminary injunction preventing her eviction, the circuit court dissolved it on March 3, 2008, setting a final hearing for April. Meanwhile, the district court did not issue a writ of possession after hearing Ervin's unlawful-detainer complaint.
On March 13, 2008, the district court ruled in favor of Stackhouse, declaring that Ervin's utility cutoff provision constituted an unlawful self-help eviction against public policy, and no writ of possession was issued.
On March 14, 2008, Ervin directed his employees to remove Stackhouse's personal property from her apartment without a writ of possession, stacking the items on the curb. Testimony varied regarding the condition of the items, with some witnesses asserting they were already vandalized in a previous burglary. Ervin appealed the district court’s judgment on March 18, 2008, leading to case no. CV-08-127 in the circuit court. On July 7, 2008, the circuit court consolidated Stackhouse's claim for monetary damages with Ervin's unlawful-detainer appeal and addressed a motion alleging Ervin's contempt for removing Stackhouse's belongings post-judgment. The consolidated cases were tried on April 23, 2009, with testimony from both parties and additional witnesses, including Ervin’s employee and Stackhouse's mother. Ervin’s employee testified he was called by Ervin to assist Stackhouse in accessing her property and noted that Stackhouse claimed she didn’t want her belongings but wished to return to the apartment. Stackhouse testified she intended to remain in the apartment, had consulted a lawyer, and denied giving written notice of vacating. She claimed Ervin had disconnected her electricity after she refused to leave. Ervin asserted that all his actions were justified based on a written notice he claimed Stackhouse had provided. On June 28, 2009, the circuit court ruled in favor of Stackhouse, determining that the lease was a residential agreement subject to applicable laws, rather than a transient lease.
Ervin's actions in disconnecting Stackhouse's power and removing her possessions from the property, conducted without a writ of possession or court order, were deemed an unlawful eviction by the circuit court. The court denied Ervin's relief in his unlawful detainer action, finding him and Southern Realty liable to Stackhouse for $1,200 for a wrongful "self-help" eviction. Although Ervin was not held in contempt, he appealed the judgment, arguing that the circuit court improperly interpreted the lease agreement, misapplied the relevant statute (the Act), and erroneously awarded damages for wrongful eviction. He sought a de novo review on appeal, claiming the circuit court had misapplied the law to the facts.
The appellate court's review is constrained to the evidence and arguments presented at trial, which did not include any constitutional challenges by Ervin. Therefore, those arguments cannot be considered on appeal. Ervin contended that the lease was a "transient lease" exempt from the Act, referencing a specific exclusion for transient occupancy in hotels and similar establishments. However, the circuit court found that the lease was, in reality, a residential agreement, supported by testimony indicating that both Stackhouse and Campbell believed it to be a landlord-tenant relationship, despite the lease's terminology. Ervin's insistence on his role as a transient landlord was undermined by evidence that long-time tenants had left due to issues with Stackhouse.
Contracts are generally enforced as written, with limited authority for appellate courts to nullify or reform contract terms based on fraud, unconscionability, or public policy violations. The intention of the parties is determined from the contract itself, considering the context and relationships involved. In a specific lease agreement, Stackhouse was required to pay a security deposit, obtain renter's insurance, occupy the apartment as a residence, and pay for utilities exceeding a $100 allowance. The lease did not apply to short-term lodgers. The governing Act aims to modernize landlord-tenant laws and applies to residential properties. The circuit court found that the lease was subject to the Act and determined that Ervin improperly attempted to evict Stackhouse by disconnecting her electricity without a court order, constituting unlawful self-help eviction. Although Ervin claimed compliance with the lease, the lack of a writ of possession before the electricity disconnection was deemed unlawful. Stackhouse's claim for damages related to the electricity cutoff amounted to $1,200, based on statutory provisions for improper utility disconnection. Her additional claim for $6,000 for personal property loss was implicitly denied. The circuit court's judgment was affirmed. The record does not clarify Southern Realty's role related to the lease or Ervin. Ervin's appeal was deemed timely after receiving an extension. Even without the Act's applicability, Alabama's unlawful-detainer statutes would prevent Ervin from discontinuing utilities without proper legal procedures.
