Sherwood v. Farber

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered November 13, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2018-03780

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

COLINS, J.

Jeffrey Farber and Catherine Halper (collectively, "Appellants") appeal from the judgment entered following a bench trial in a landlord-tenant action brought against them by their former tenant, Appellee Maria Sherwood. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The following factual background is derived from the trial court's findings of fact.^[1] Sherwood is a disabled combat veteran who suffers from Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"). Trial Court Opinion, 6/22/20, Findings of Fact ("F.F.") ¶¶1, 8-9. Appellants are a married couple who co-own a rental

2

property at 1089 Durham Road, Pineville, Pennsylvania ("Property"). Id., F.F. ¶¶2-4. On July 15, 2015, Sherwood rented an apartment at the Property from Appellants on a one-year term that renewed annually. Id., F.F. ¶¶5-6. Sherwood continued living in the apartment beyond the first lease term and the lease renewed in July 2016 and again in July 2017. Id., F.F. ¶7.

In November 2017, Sherwood announced to Farber that she was traveling to Arizona to receive treatment following a recurrence of her PTSD symptoms. Id., F.F. ¶10. At that time, Farber informed Sherwood that her behavior had been disturbing other tenants, that he was going to obtain a restraining order against her, and that she needed to find a new place to live. Id., F.F. ¶¶11-12.

While Sherwood was in Arizona, her friend, Louren Campoverde, regularly checked on the apartment and picked up Sherwood's mail. Id., F.F. ¶13. Sherwood remained in Arizona for several months longer than expected after her wallet was stolen and she went through the process to obtain a new identification card and other documents. Id., F.F. ¶16. However, she continued to pay her rent of $1, 150 per month during her entire stay in Arizona. Id., F.F. ¶¶17, 41.

In April 2018, during one of her periodic visits, Campoverde discovered that someone else was living in Sherwood's apartment. Id., F.F. ¶18.

Campoverde did not see a posted eviction notice during any of her visits; in fact, Appellants never served Sherwood with a summons to appear for an eviction proceeding, a notice to quit, or a notice of a determination of

3

abandonment. Id., F.F. ¶¶19, 20. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that Farber had Sherwood's cellular telephone number and he had in fact called her in January 2018 to request that she move her vehicles left on the property, Farber never attempted to contact Sherwood by telephone to inform her that she was being evicted. Id., F.F. ¶¶14-15, 24. Instead, Appellants re-rented the apartment without any notice to Sherwood. Id., F.F. ¶20.

Upon receiving the news that someone else was living in her apartment, Sherwood returned to Pennsylvania in April 2018 and discovered that her belongings had been removed from the apartment and placed in a portable metal storage container, referred to as a Pod, that was situated in the Property's parking lot. Id., F.F. ¶¶21-22 & p.6 n.22. Sherwood attempted to contact Farber but received no reply. Id., F.F. ¶26. Sherwood also discovered that the keys to her truck were locked with her other belongings in the Pod, which necessitated her having the truck towed from the Property and having a new key made. Id., F.F. ¶¶25, 38.

Sherwood enlisted the assistance of the Housing Equality Center of Pennsylvania, which contacted Appellants and demanded that Sherwood be provided immediate access to her personal property; Farber refused, stating that Sherwood would not be allowed access to her belongings unless she paid for the costs of storage and hired professional movers. Id., F.F. ¶¶28-30. Sherwood also discovered that Appellants had used her security deposit and rent payments during her time in Arizona to pay for the apartment clean-out and Pod rental fees. Id., F.F. ¶23. When Sherwood returned to the Property

4

in June 2018 to attempt to access her belongings, Farber handed her a number of notices that he claimed to have posted before the eviction and threatened that he would call the police if she returned to the Property. Id., F.F. ¶¶32-33.

On June 29, 2018, Sherwood filed in the trial court a complaint and motion for injunctive relief seeking immediate access to her belongings. After a hearing in the trial court, Sherwood was able to recover her possessions in July 2018. Id., F.F. ¶35. Sherwood amended her complaint three times, and the operative complaint filed on September 25, 2018 asserted claims against Appellants for wrongful eviction, conversion, trespass to chattels, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, violations of Section 505.1 and 512 of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 ("LTA"), ^[2] and a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").^[3]

A one-day non-jury trial was held on December 11, 2019. On June 22, 2020, the trial court issued its verdict in favor of Sherwood on her claims of breach of contract and violations of the LTA, while dismissing her claims of conversion, trespass to chattels, trespass, violation of the UTPCPL, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Order, 6/22/20; Trial Court Opinion, 6/22/20, Conclusions of Law ("C.L.") ¶¶ 1-9. The trial court

5

concluded that Appellants wrongfully evicted Sherwood by re-renting her apartment despite the fact that she was continually paying them rent; improperly moved Sherwood's belongings to the storage Pod without providing her notice; and improperly used Sherwood's security deposit to cover the costs of the apartment clean out and storage. Trial Court Opinion, 6/22/20, C.L. ¶¶ 7-9.

The trial court awarded Sherwood damages in the amount of $59, 666.64 consisting of: (i) $1, 150 for her security deposit; (ii) $1, 874.83 for hotel fees from April 25, 2018 to June 6, 2018; (iii) $859.67 for the tow and key replacement for her truck; (iv) $6, 098.82 for storage fees from July 2018 to September 2019; (v) $4, 600 for rent paid from January 2018 to April 2018; (vi) $1, 500 statutory damages for misuse of security deposit under Section 512 of the LTA; and (vii) $43, 583.32 statutory treble damages for removal of possessions without permission under Section 505.1 of the LTA. Id., F.F. ¶¶37-41, C.L. ¶¶10, 13, 15. In addition, the trial court ordered Appellants to pay attorneys' fees and court costs in the amount of $92, 750 pursuant to Section 505.1 of the LTA. Id., C.L. ¶17.

Both Appellants and Sherwood filed post-trial motions. On November 6, 2020, the trial court issued an order granting Sherwood's post-trial motion in part, directing judgment in her favor on the trespass to chattels, conversion, and UTPCPL claims. Order, 11/6/20, ¶¶1, 2, 4. The trial court amended the verdict in Sherwood's favor by awarding her additional damages of $15, 000 on the trespass to chattels claim, $1, 000 on the conversion claim, and $100

6

on the UTPCPL claim. Id. The court denied Sherwood's post-trial motion in all other respects and denied Appellants' post-trial motion in its entirety. Id., ¶¶3, 5. Therefore, the total verdict in Sherwood's favor after post-trial motions was $168, 516.64, consisting of $75, 766.64 in damages and $92, 750 in fees and costs. Judgment was entered on November 13, 2020, and Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal.^[4]

Appellants raise the following issues on appeal:

[1.] Whether the trial court committed a manifest abuse of discretion and/or a clear error of law in awarding [Sherwood] any storage fees beyond July 15, 2018

[2.] Whether the trial court's award of treble damages of $43, 583.32 pursuant to 68 P.S. § 250.505a(i) constituted a manifest abuse of discretion and/or a clear error of law

[3.] Whether the trial court's awards of damages on [Sherwood's] claims of conversion and trespass to chattels constituted manifest abuses of discretion and/or [] clear errors of law

[4.] Whether the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and court [costs] in the amount of $92, 750.00 constituted a manifest abuse of discretion and/or a clear error of law

Appellant's Brief at 3 (trial court disposition and unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Our review of an order denying a post-trial motion is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529, 549 (Pa. Super. 2021). "An

7

abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will." Id. (citation omitted). Where the appellant raises an issue as to an error of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Id.

Appellants' first three appellate issues concern the trial court's award of damages to Sherwood.

Our standard of review of a trial court's award of damages is narrow: In reviewing the award of damages, the appellate courts should give deference to the decisions of the trier of fact who is usually in a superior position to appraise and weigh the evidence. If the verdict bears a reasonable resemblance to the damages proven, we will not upset it merely because we might have awarded different damages.

Witherspoon v. McDowell-Wright, 241 A.3d 1182, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

Appellants first challenge the $6, 098.82 damages award for storage fees from the date Sherwood was able...