HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2878 Civil
RHODES DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC., t/a LONG
MEADOWS ASSOCIATES, LP &
LONG MEADOWS
APARTMENTS,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
SCOTT MALAKIN and
BONNIE MALAKIN,
Defendants
NO. 2005 - 2878 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., January
, 2007
Defendant Bonnie Malakin has filed this timely pro se appeal from our order of
September 26, 2006 directing that she vacate her apartment within fifteen (15) days. 1 On
appeal she alleges that our order was in error because: 1) the plaintiff landlord
unlawfully refused to renew her lease in retaliation for her filing a claim with the
Pennsylvania Human relations commission; 2) she was improperly discriminated against
by the plaintiff because of her disability; and 3) she was overcharged by the plaintiff in
the amount of$722.2
Plaintiff commenced this action to evict defendant almost 1 and 1Iz years before it
finally came before us.3 The original basis for the eviction was an alleged violation of
the lease agreement. During the course of the litigation the term of the lease expired and
defendant gave appropriate notice of its intention not to renew it. Based upon our finding
1 Although her counsel agreed that an order for inuuediate possession would be appropriate under the facts
as we found them to be, plaintiff agreed to a 15 day extension. (See Transcript of September 27, 2006,
Proceedings, p. 40.
2 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
3 It started as an action before the Magisterial District Judge; was then heard by a board of arbitrators; and
was finally heard before this Court.
NO. 2005 - 2878 CIVIL TERM
that the lease had expired and that the plaintiff had appropriately exercised its right not to
renew it, we entered an order for possession of the premises.
The reason for our order was clearly stated on the record in the following
exchange with defendant's counsel during his closing argument.
THE COURT:
MR. BIRINGER:
THE COURT:
MR. BIRINGER:
THE COURT:
MR. BIRINGER:
THE COURT:
(emphasis added).
Mr. Biringer.
Well, basically, our position is that the nonrenewal of this lease
closely followed the filing of the Human Relations complaint and
the answer to the Human Relations Commission. . . .
Do I understand your position is that the only defense you have
will be for me to find that this is in retaliation to the Human
Relations Commission?
Yes, and I don't believe you even need to find discrimination.
I agree. I know I don't need to find discrimination. I just want to
get clear. If! find that it was in retaliation for filing the Human
Relations complaint, then she can't be evicted. If! find it was for
any other purpose at all, she can be evicted.
I would agree.
Believe me, if I could in good conscience find that this was
motivated by her filing of the Human Relations Commission
complaint, I would do so. She has been a tenant there for 20
years. I sympathize with her position. I cannot in good
conscience find that.
What I do find is that it was just another legal tactic properly used
to end the litigation that had been ongoing for almost a year when
they determined not to renew the lease.4
As can be seen from the above exchange, our scope of inquiry was limited to
determining whether the non-renewal of plaintiff s lease was in retaliation for her
complaint to the Human Relations Commission.5 Since we were not asked to address the
other issues raised in her appeal, we are not in a position to comment upon them.
4 Transcript of September 27,2006, Proceedings, pp. 38-39.
5 The complaint to the Human Relations Commission was based upon alleged discrimination against
Defendant because of her disability.
2
NO. 2005 - 2878 CIVIL TERM
DATE
David Lanza, Esquire
2157 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
Bonnie Malakin
LONG MEADOWS APARTMENTS
3 Richland Lane, 3B-I08
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
:sld
Edward E. Guido, 1.
3