Failure to Return Security Deposit in Pennsylvania

Background

“There are statutory requirements for return of a security deposit by the landlord at the termination of the lease.” (See In re Order Amending Rule 514 of Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions, No. 463, at *1 (Pa. Oct. 20, 2021).)

“A landlord is required to provide a tenant with a list of damages to the premises within 30 days of the termination of the lease; the list of damages must be accompanied by payment of the difference between the security deposit (plus accrued interest) and the amount of damages to the premises.” (See id.)

“If the landlord fails to provide a damages list within 30 days of the termination of the lease, the landlord waives the right to withhold any of the security deposit or interest, while failure to remit timely the security deposit to the tenant within 30 days makes the landlord liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit.” (See id.)

“The statute provides that [a]ny attempted waiver of this section by contract or otherwise shall be void and unenforceable.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“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." (See Nitardy v. Chabot (2018) 195 A.3d 941, 947.)

“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." (See 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.” (See id.)

“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.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of this Court's review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” (See Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (1997) 688 A.2d 736, 738 n. 2; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. E. Penn Sch. Dist. (2006) 903 A.2d 608, 613; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“The appellate standard of review is de novo when a reviewing court considers questions of law.” (See Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. (2007) 592 Pa. 458, 926 A.2d 899; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“In reviewing questions of law, the scope of review is plenary, as the reviewing court may examine the entire contents of the record.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “Section 512 of the Landlord Tenant Act entitles Tenants to an amount equal to double the security deposit where Landlord fails to return the security deposit or provide written notice of damages to the premises within 30 days after Tenants have vacated the premises.” (See Burr v. Callwood (1988) 374 Pa. Super. 502, 505 n.1.)

It is also well settled that “the first consequence of failing to provide timely a written list is [landlord’s] forfeiture of the right to withhold the security deposit. Thus, if a landlord does not provide a written list in a timely fashion, the tenant is entitled to recover the full amount of the security deposit. The second consequence of failing to provide timely a written list is forfeiture of the right to sue the tenant for damages to the premises.”(See Nitardy v. Chabot (2018) 195 A.3d 941, 956.)