Nitardy v. Chabot – Pa. Superior Court
– published opinion – Septembwr 14, 2018
majority
(2-1)
Court affirmed in part, vacated in
part, and remanded decision of lower court in favor of tenant who sued concerning
security deposit.
Oral
modification of written lease
“The
law is well settled that parties may modify a written lease agreement by a
subsequent oral agreement, and this modification may be shown by words or
conduct. Bonczek v. Pascoe Equip. Co., 450 A.2d 75, 77 (Pa.Super. 1982). For an
oral modification to be valid, it must be based upon valid consideration and
proved by evidence that is “clear, precise, and convincing.” Id. (citation
omitted).”
Failure to provide
written list of any damages - specificity
The
Landlord and Tenant Act specifically provides that a landlord shall “within
thirty days of termination of a lease. . . provide a tenant with a written list
of any damages to the leasehold premises for which the landlord claims the
tenant is liable.” 68 P.S. § 250.512(a). . . .When the landlord delivers the
“written list of any damages,” the landlord shall return the security deposit
less “the actual amount of damages to the leasehold premises caused by the
tenant.” Id. . . . . If the landlord fails to pay the difference between the
security deposit and the “actual damages to the leasehold premises,” the
landlord shall be liable for double the amount of the security deposit less
actual damages to the leasehold premises. 68 P.S. § 250.512(c).
Since
the Act requires that the landlord return the security deposit less the “actual
damages” to the property, the “written list of any damages” must be specific
enough so that the landlord can value the “actual damages” and notify the
tenant of the basis for deducting amounts from the security deposit. In this
case, the trial court found the “written list of any damages” that Landlord
provided to Tenants was too vague to constitute an appropriate “written list of
any damages.” In particular, the trial court found that a “vague list, without
accompanying values as to each item, will not suffice.” . . . .We agree.
Tenant’s failure to timely
provide new address in writing not dispositive
Subsection
250.512(e) states that “[f]ailure of the tenant to provide the landlord with
his new address in writing upon termination of the lease or upon surrender and
acceptance of the leasehold premises shall relieve the landlord from any
liability under [section 250.512,]” which is the section relating to security
deposits discussed supra. 68 P.S. § 250.512(e).
The
trial court declined to apply this provision, stating that the parties remained
in continual email contact, the Tenants evantually provided Landlord with a
forwarding address, and Landlord had the mailing information needed to comply
with the security deposit provisions of the Act in ample time to do so. . . . .
Further, the court stated, “the suggestion that [Landlord] did not return any
of [the Tenants’] security deposit because he did not have their forwarding
address is belied by the record in this case.” Id. We see no basis to disturb
the trial court’s ruling.
We
see no basis to disturb the trial court’s ruling. The record supports its
factual findings. Further, in the lone reported case by this Court construing
subsection 250.512(e), we rejected a landlord’s attempt to use subsection 250.512(e) as a shield when there was no
evidence in the record indicating that the failure to return the security
deposit was due to the landlord’s not knowing where to mail the deposit. Adamsky v. Picknick, 603 A.2d 1069, 1071
(Pa. Super. 1992) (“[W]e find the lack of notice argument is tenuous at best
since appellant’s reason for withholding the deposit was not because he did not
have appellees’ new address[;] rather, he withheld it because he maintained
there were damages for which he should be compensated.”). Therefore, we hold that the trial court
properly declined to apply subsection 250.512(e) in this case.
Landlord’s
counterclaim for damages – burden of proof
The
Act places on the landlord the burden of proof as to actual damages caused by a
tenant to the leasehold premises. 68 P.S. § 250.512(c). However, note that a landlord’s right,
pursuant to the Lease, to require a tenant to pay for damage to a property may
be separate and distinct from a landlord’s right to deduct amounts for damage
from the security deposit pursuant to 68 P.S. § 250.512(a). If a landlord fails
to meet the requirements of 68 P.S. §250.512(a), he still has a claim pursuant
to the Lease. He just cannot deduct the amounts from the security deposit and
must collect the amounts directly from the tenant.
