PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
I. Introduction and Statement of Facts
Plaintiff has brought an unlawful withholding of security deposit suit against the Defendants.
In September of 2004, Plaintiffs signed a lease with Buckeye Real Estate for the premises located at 127 Clinton, Columbus, Ohio 43202. On approximately January 12th 2005, Plaintiffs signed renewal lease with Buckeye Real Estate which was set to expire on September 2, 2006.
In approximately early June 2005, prospective buyers (Robert Schneider, defendant, and his partner) came to the house after Buckeye Real Estate called the day before to the tenants about the visit. Upon entry, Schneider asked Plaintiff Mealer if there had been a forced entry because of the condition of the front door. Mealer responded that the door had always been that way since Plaintiffs had been there.
On approximately June 22, 2005, the Plaintiffs received a notice of change of ownership from Buckeye Real Estate, indicating that Defendants had purchased the property.
In September 2005, the new owners, Defendants, came to the house to inspect it again and asked about problems Plaintiffs had had with it. Plaintiff Mealer told them that basement flooding had been a problem. Mealer showed them the crudely fitting back and front doors along with hard to use locks. Mealer then showed Defendant Schneider where the dishwasher door hit the countertops; the countertop had to be lifted an inch in order to close the door. Mealer told them that if it was not closed this way there would be leaks.
In March 2006, another visit by the landlord occurred in which Mealer mentioned the basement flooding again. Mealer also showed him where the dishwasher was leaking and was told by Defendants that it was due to mold and it needed to be washed. Although it clearly was due to an old, worn-out seal, Mealer washed the seal but the leaking continued. The owners also discussed the countertops and cabinets being what they referred to as “junk.” Defendants indicated that they were cheap and would be replaced; Mealer recalls this clearly because they had mentioned doing this once Plaintiffs moved out and their daughters moved in (Mealer later told his roommates that this seemed awkward to mention in front of him).
In approximately May 2006, Plaintiff Mealer called Mr. Schneider and told him that the dishwasher was no longer washing dishes, continued to leak and Plaintiffs would no longer use it. The dishes were no longer being cleaned and the detergent was not getting dissolved; Schneider rhetorically asked him if he knew how to wash dishes by hand.
In August 2006, Mealer called Mr. Schneider to request a ‘walk-through’ of the house so Plaintiffs could repair anything Schneider thought should be fixed to avoid deductions from their security deposit. Schneider refused the opportunity for a walk through and told Mealer specifically to just make sure it was clean and “immaculate” and to clean behind the fridge and stove.
September 3, 2006, as shown in Plaintiff Mealer’s phone record, Mr. Schneider called and told Mealer that he should receive the security deposit in 30 days.
On October 12th 2006, Mealer sent the Plaintiffs’ forwarding address because even though Schneider had given Mealer his verbal acknowledgement of his intention to send the list, he had not done so. Shortly thereafter, Mealer called Schneider to confirm that he had received the notice of forwarding address. Schneider indicated that Plaintiffs would receive only $150 of the security deposit based on the damage and clean up that had to be done. He also said that Mealer could keep it or split it with his roommates however he wished. Schneider gave no reason for not sending it in 30 days as he told Mealer on the phone and accused Plaintiffs of being “the biggest party house on campus.” Mealer also asked for an itemized list of damages on top of the verbal list Schneider provided.
On November 21st 2006, Mealer received $150 of the deposit, two months after move out and over a month after Schneider had received Plaintiffs’ forwarding address. No itemized list of deductions against the deposit was provided, only a short note that did not mention anything about the house or deposit was included with the check.
On November 29th 2006, Mealer sent a letter to Schneider specifically to request the itemized list of deductions and copies of receipts supporting those deductions.
On December 2nd 2006, Mealer telephoned Scheider to confirm that he had received the letter. Schneider provided Mealer with another longer verbal list and was also stated that he would send an itemized list of deductions in a couple weeks. Mealer was met with a lot more anger and hostility about his pursuit of the deposit and explanation for deductions from it. It seemed as if it was an unreasonable request that the landlord shouldn’t have to figure out (although the work should already have been done to figure out the $150 security deposit return check).
On January 28th 2007, Mr. Schneider dropped off the list at Mealer’s dorm. This occurred two months after calling to request it and four months after move out and the initial request for a deposit and list. The list was simply a ‘laundry list’ of items with no monetary values attached.
On February 28th 2007, the Ohio State Legal Clinic, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, sent a letter to Mr. Schneider explaining that he had to send an itemized list and receipts for the items purchased and that this was to be done by law, not by choice. After receiving no response, the legal clinic told Mealer that his only option was to go to court on the matter.
On April 9th 2007, Mealer called Mr. Schneider, and Schneider told him that he had just received the legal clinic’s letter. Mealer was met with even more hostility as Schneider was defensive about Mealer not accepting his first list. Plaintiffs were accused of having five people living in the house, and that they should have expected not to get much back because of more wear and tear from the imaginary extra people leasing the house. He said there were outlets, windows, and other items (that he never mentioned before) that had to be fixed to make the house “livable” for his daughter and niece. Schneider told Mealer they were not backing down from this decision, and, as always, concluded the call by asking Mealer how school was going and other personal questions.
On April 25th 2007, Mealer finally received the itemized list of deductions against the security deposit and copies of receipts requested. Mealer called Schneider to discuss what the other items were (items that were not included in the first list). Mealer asked him about the “rules” that were attached to the letter, and Schneider said they were rules he gave Plaintiffs when Defendants bought the house. Mealer told him that he had never seen them before, but asked if he was changing the terms of the lease in this way. Schneider told Mealer that the rules/regulations were also contained within the lease.
Schneider also said that there were seven people on the lease (without showing Mealer a copy of the lease with seven people); acknowledged that he did not give Mealer an itemized list of deductions against the security deposit in November but rather in January; and, for the first time, told Mealer that, all of a sudden, he had decided the cost was beyond the amount of the deposit, despite the first list clearly stating that, “We feel, the $150 returned to Mr. Mealer was sufficient given the condition of the house and the time, expense and effort required to make the house suitable for renters.”
