Question! What can be done?

[Itspink]

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

My mother had given a first months rent and security deposit to this man she was going to rent a 1 bedroom from. It was decent looking for a quick glance and she was in a sticky situation and needed a place ASAP. After giving money(NO LEASE SIGNED)she had started going in and doing extesive deep cleaning. After the second day she started seeing roaches coming from the kitchen counters, cabinets etc. She was getting a place for her, her two small children and two cats. She had called the Lanlord about the issue, he came out and did nothing but say "haven't you ever lived in the city before?" So She took it upon herself to spend money on bombs, roach traps and the next day after they were still coming out. She got so frustrated she ended up calling an exterminator. Admist waiting for the exterminator a nearby neighbor had come over to introduce herself to my mom. She Began telling her she's about the 15th person to come to that place, during the past several months she had witnessed a few people coming and going and that two weeks prior to that the man next door came outside with 2 large trash bags covered with roaches. She called the exterminator and explained this to him before he got there and he advised her that if he did come out and treat her aprtment it would not stop them coming back if there is an infestation in the building. He was very honest(which she appreciated)! That fourth day she couldn't take it anymore and risk the unhealthy living conditions so she had told the man she would no longer be taking the apartment. He understood and said he doesn't blame her. She was expecting the security and first months rent back. He told her he would give her the money once he found someone to lease the place to. It has now been over a month and he gave her the security deposit 650$ minus 25 dollars short of what it was 2 weeks ago and is now just telling her that he did not find a renter and she isn't getting any of the first months rent back. Does he have a right to keep first months even tho she was in and out for only 4 days, did not stay overnight or bring any belongings? She did not know how severe the infestation was, he never made her aware of it and she was not about to subject her children and animals to that unhealthy living condition...Can she sue him for the first months rent in the state of Pennsylvania?

 

[army judge]

Yes, the landlord can keep what she paid.
He agreed to mitigate, and returned some money to her.
He could have kept it all, and could sue her for breaching the lease.

Your mother can sue anyone she wishes.
She won't prevail should she sue the landlord.
She's free to do what millions of Americans do, sue anything that moves for whatever slight she believes she's suffered.

I suggest you help mom do a more thorough inspection of any apartment she might wish to rent in the future.
Tell mom NOT to pay or sign anything until she has inspected the unit and is 1,000% satisfied with what she sees.
Otherwise, she'll encounter this issue, maybe more issues in the future.

 

[Itspink]

There was no lease signed. I could understand if some sort of lease was presented and she signed that but there wasn't one. There was no rental agreement or terms answered to prior to her not taking that apartment other than money she gave him which he said he would give back.

 

[adjusterjack]

In the absence of a written lease, she was a month-to-month tenant which means her contract and deposit was for one month. On a month-to-month tenancy you pay in advance for a month whether you stay there for the month or not so the landlord was entitled to his one month's rent. He would not have been entitled to rent beyond the one month which is likely why he returned the deposit.

If he had been able to find a tenant immediately after her departure he would not have been entitled to duplicate rent so he would have had to have given her back part of the rent. But that didn't happen.

It would have been worse if there was a lease because she could have been responsible for ensuing rent after the first month if he couldn't replace her through no fault of his own.

If she's looking for an apartment in old buildings in an old part of a city she should be talking to neighbors about any issues with the apartments before handing over any money.

 

[Itspink]

She didn't sign a contract or lease is what I'm saying. There was nothing that was signed. I've been researching this and found a woman named Carolyn Hewett in North Carolina that had the same issue with a property managment company with the same roach infestation. She however took it to the news station and because there is some law against a Lanlord making sure the apartment is habitable she got everything back. I will do more research on this particular subject and see what else I can find out. Thank you for your input as well.

 

[KatDini]

North Carolina is not Pennsylvania. Because of that, landlord-tenant laws may vary (as they do in all 50 states).

Even though your Mom did not sign anything, she is STILL considered a MONTH-to-MONTH tenant. That is the nature of landlord-tenant law in your state.

 

[army judge]

There was no lease signed. I could understand if some sort of lease was presented and she signed that but there wasn't one. There was no rental agreement or terms answered to prior to her not taking that apartment other than money she gave him which he said he would give back.

A lease need not be signed for state law to speak.
The law won't allow oral agreements when real estate is rented.
The one exception is for short term rentals, as in hotel stays.
And, even with hotel, guest houses, B&B lodgings, there is plenty of state law that speaks to the issue.



I don't have the time or disposition to go into great detail about month to month tenancies in PA.
You can Google it, and all will be revealed for you to understand.

Her lease is/was a creature of PA state statute.
I could bore you with a discussion of the "Statute of Frauds", but I won't.
You can Google it, if you want to know more.
Your mother's lease is/was a creature of PA law.

In PA, unlike MOST states, the LL has no duty to mitigate damages.
That means, the LL isn't required under statute to find a replacement tenant with great haste.

All in all, the laws in PA favor the LL.

Her LL was most generous, and I suggest she cut her losses, find a new place, and let it go!

Here's more information on PA rental laws:

Pennsylvania Rental Laws

Pennsylvania Notice Requirements to Terminate a Month-to-Month Tenancy | Nolo.com

http://tenant.net/Other_Areas/Penn/harris/pa-toc.html

http://tenant.net/Other_Areas/Penn/harris/pa-part4.html

 

[army judge]

She didn't sign a contract or lease is what I'm saying. There was nothing that was signed. I've been researching this and found a woman named Carolyn Hewett in North Carolina that had the same issue with a property managment company with the same roach infestation. She however took it to the news station and because there is some law against a Lanlord making sure the apartment is habitable she got everything back. I will do more research on this particular subject and see what else I can find out. Thank you for your input as well.

If mom lives in PA, PA law applies.
PA isn't a very tenant friendly state.

 

[Itspink]

There is such a thing called the Implied Warranty Of Habitatlity which Pa does stand for. The man just shrugged this off and didn't even tell her of the infestation. That I think could stand.

 

[Itspink]

Pest infestation in the state of Pa is a violation of a health code. She had to pay out of pocket for the bombs, the sprays, the consultation from the exterminator, the roach traps and he did nothing. She informed him three times of this issue. All of this is really making me want to move out of PA then if slum lords can just run around doing this kind of stuff to people. How he hid them the first day I will never know. My mom said she had never had seen a roach before and he informed her that the bugs she did see(1 or 2) must've been water bugs from outside. Pshhh...I will definitely make sure she inspects more the next time she decides to move. Thank you for all your information, I'm not going to give up that easily though. Lol

 

[army judge]

There is such a thing called the Implied Warranty Of Habitatlity which Pa does stand for. The man just shrugged this off and didn't even tell her of the infestation. That I think could stand.

Words, more useless words.

Don't delude yourself, even if you could make such a claim, your mother FAILED to properly do so.

The Implied Warranty of Habitability doesn't apply after a tenant vacates.

You must assert such a defense while still a tenant, and after a period of time, you could possibly vacate.

The implied warranty of habitability is used as a defense, meaning that you bring it up in court after your landlord eviction has sued you for eviction. If you feel that conditions exist which affect the habitability of your apartment, you should tell your landlord about the defective condition, in writing, so that he has a reasonable opportunity to repair them.

If you have notified your landlord of the defect in writing, but he has failed to make the necessary repairs, you may consider taking the following action:

1. Cancel the lease without paying further rent, but you must vacate or leave the residence;

2. Withhold rent until the defect is repaired;

3. Pay only part of the rent owed;

4. Repair the defect yourself and then deduct the cost from your rent. The cost of repairs cannot exceed the amount of monthly rent, and repairs must be necessary to make the residence habitable;

5. Get a court order to try to make the landlord make repairs.

Of course, if you take any of the above action, your landlord may press for eviction through the courts. It is at this time that you would assert the defense of the Implied Warranty of Habitability. In pursuing any course of action however, be sure to give your landlord written notice. You should also keep records of all correspondence sent.

There is no way to determine in advance whether the court will agree that the landlord has violated the Implied Warranty of Habitability, as these issues are decided on a case-by-case basis. Some of the non-exclusive factors that will be considered by the court are the existence of housing code violations, and the nature and seriousness of defects.

Its a very risky remedy, especially in PA.

PA LawHELP.org - Your Online Guide to Legal Information and Legal Services in Pennsylvania

http://www.tenant.net/Other_Areas/Penn/harris/pa-part2.html

Pennsylvania's Implied Warranty of Habitability

 

[adjusterjack]

The law won't allow oral agreements when real estate is rented.
The one exception is for short term rentals, as in hotel stays.

I beg to differ. I know of no states that don't allow oral agreements for the rental of residential real estate. In fact, PA's landlord tenant statute specifically allows for it:

Section 250.201. Leases for not more than three years.

Real property, including any personal property thereon, may be leased for a term of not more than three years by a landlord or his agent to a tenant or his agent, by oral or written contract or agreement.

https://d1unatz8mcf3a5.cloudfront.net/uploads/PA_landlord_tenant_act.pdf

 

[adjusterjack]

Pest infestation in the state of Pa is a violation of a health code.

Then she should have called the health department on the day she discovered the infestation. Had the health department taken action against the landlord for the infestation at the time, then she could have had good cause to leave and demand a full refund.

Right now all you have is an unsupported allegation that the "infestation" rose to a level that would have been actionable by the health department.

 

[Itspink]

She does have pictures of the infestation, times and dates on her phone which she had called the Lanlord, the exterminator visit, she spoke to a lot of neighbors, she has text messages from him even stating that once he found a tenant that he would give her a full refund back.

 

[adjusterjack]

I think we've pretty much exhausted the discussion on the matter.

Your mother's choice now is to sue or not sue.

There's no way to predict the outcome.