[*1]
| Wyant v Catlin |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 50662(U) [39 Misc 3d 1219(A)] |
| Decided on April 29, 2013 |
| Justice Court Of The Town Of Red Hook, Dutchess County |
| Triebwasser, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports. |
Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess
County
Danielle Wyant
and Ardie Simmons, Plaintiffs,
against
Maribeth Catlin and Todd Catlin, Defendants.
|
C-414-13 SC
Jonah Triebwasser, J.
Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Tenants") are suing defendants (hereinafter
"Landlords") for the return of $2,393.82 of Tenants' security deposit. A trial was held on
April 18, 2013. Tenants and Landlords appeared pro se.
Facts of the
Case
Pursuant to the lease entered into between the tenants and
landlords on January 26, 2011, (Defendants' Exhibit J, in evidence) tenants paid a
security deposit of $2,800.00. This security deposit, according to the lease, was " . . .a
damage deposit . . .all or part of which may be non-refundable upon termination of this
lease to repair damage done by this Tenant." (Emphasis added.)
On February 14, 2013, tenants vacated the premises, owing no rentals to the
landlords. On that date, landlord and tenant did a "walk-through" of the premises to
assess any damages for the purposes of applying the security deposit, or part thereof, to
repair any damage. The sworn, uncontradicted testimony is that, at the conclusion of the
walkthrough (which was accomplished in approximately five minutes) landlord told
tenant "[p]lace looks good guys." Landlord did not take the opportunity of the
walk-through to show all of the later-alleged damage to the premises. Tenants saw
workman doing work in the house on February 15, 2013, the day after they moved out
and participated in the walk-through.
Landlords withheld $2,393.82 of the security deposit to pay for damages that
they claim occurred at the hands of the tenants.
Analysis of the Exhibits in
Evidence
In support of their contention that they were justified to
withhold the amount in question, [*2]landlords presented
to the Court numerous photographs of damages in various parts of the house.
(Defendants' exhibits A, B and C, in evidence.) It should be noted that most of these
photographs have dates imprinted on them, the dates all being before tenants
moved out. Landlords sought to explain that discrepancy by claiming that they were
unfamiliar with the date-setting mechanism of their own digital camera. Landlords later
admitted on cross-examination that they had no independent proof of when the photos
were actually taken.
Landlords complained of the condition of the yard, with numerous cigarette
butts found along with a large volume of dog droppings. Landlords admitted on
cross-examination that the premises are fenced on only three sides and that dogs other
than the tenants could have left their "calling cards"[FN1] and that smokers other than the tenants
could have left the butts or that they could have blown in through the area that was not
fenced.
Landlords then attempted to prove that the premises were in acceptable
shape when tenants moved in on January 28, 2011, by placing into evidence the lease
(Defendants' exhibit E, in evidence) and cancelled checks showing the return of security
of the prior tenants (Defendants' exhibit D, in evidence), claiming that they would not
have returned the security to the prior tenants if there had been problems. However, the
lease between the landlords and the prior tenants expired January 23, 2010, a full year
before the plaintiff-tenants moved in. Landlords had no explanation for that date
discrepancy. The checks in Exhibit D do add up to the amount of the prior tenants'
security, and are dated in early 2012, but again, landlords had no explanation for the
discrepancy in the dates of the prior lease.
Landlords placed into evidence receipts from various hardware supply stores
to show that they had to expend funds to repair the premises after the tenants vacated the
premises. However, two of these receipts are dated before tenants vacated the
premises and therefore could not have been as a result of damage allegedly detected at
the walk-through of February 14, 2013. (Defendants' exhibits 3 and 4, in evidence.)
Again, landlords were unable to satisfactorily explain this discrepancy.
During cross-examination, landlords admitted that they had no "before"
photos of the premises showing its true condition before tenants moved in. They
admitted that they had no proof that the cigarette burns shown in the photos (Defendants'
exhibit C, in evidence) were made by tenants rather than by the workmen who were there
the day after tenants moved out. In fact, landlords offered no substantive proof of the
condition of the premises as they were before the tenants moved in.
Tenants offer the theory that, because the landlords have put the premises up
for sale on the real estate market (Plaintiffs' exhibit 1, in evidence) that landlords seek to
pay for "sprucing up"[FN2] the [*3]premises with the tenants' funds to enhance the possibility
of a sale. Tenants also point to the fact that the workmen came the day after tenants
moved out to show that the damages may have been caused by the workmen.
Court's Reasoning and
Decision
Tenants have proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that they submitted a security deposit of $2,800.00 to the landlords at the start of the
lease and that landlords have withheld $2,393.82 of that security deposit.
The purpose of the security deposit was clearly labeled in the lease as ". . . to
repair damage done by this Tenant." The lease is a contract between the landlords and
tenants. Once these tenants proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the security
deposit, or some portion thereof, has been withheld to pay for repairs which they contest,
it becomes incumbent upon the landlords, pursuant to that contractual obligation, to
prove that the damages were caused by tenants and the true value of the repair of those
damages. Landlords have failed to prove that the damages complained of were caused by
tenants. Therefore, they must return the balance of the security deposit to tenants.
It is the decision and Order of this Court that the landlords, Maribeth and
Todd Catlin, shall pay to the tenants, Danielle Wyant and Ardie Simmons, the sum of
$2,393.82 plus court costs of $15.00, for a total due Danielle Wyant and Ardie Simmons
of $2,408.82, within 30 days of the date of this Order
SO ORDERED.
Dated:Red Hook, New York
April 29, 2013
__________________________________________
JONAH TRIEBWASSER,
Justice, Town of Red Hook
Footnotes
Footnote 1: The choice of
descriptive language here was the Court's and not the witnesses.
Footnote 2: Again, the choice of
descriptive language here was the Court's and not the witnesses.