Pulley v. Milberger
2006 WL 2044977, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6446, 198 S.W.3d 418 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Property Code, a landlord's failure to provide a perfectly itemized list of deductions from a security deposit within 30 days does not automatically constitute bad faith if the landlord can rebut the statutory presumption of bad faith with evidence of extensive damages and good faith attempts to communicate with the tenant about those damages.
Facts:
- On April 9, 1997, Ralph and Rubye Pulley leased a house from Keith Milberger, providing a $3,700 security deposit.
- The lease agreement stipulated that the Pulleys were responsible for damages beyond normal wear and tear and were required to water the yard.
- The Pulleys resided in the house for six years, renewing on a month-to-month basis after the first year.
- On July 17, 2003, the Pulleys gave notice they would vacate on August 18, 2003.
- Before they vacated, Milberger discovered the front lawn was dead and that the sprinkler system had been repeatedly turned off.
- After the Pulleys surrendered the property on August 18, 2003, Milberger's inspection revealed extensive damage, including a cracked foundation, a deeply scratched china cabinet, a large oil stain on the garage floor, and carpets and walls heavily stained with urine.
- On August 22, 2003, Milberger sent the Pulleys a letter describing the damage and stating that the cost of repairs exceeded their security deposit.
- On October 2, 2003, the Pulleys sent a demand letter for the return of their deposit, to which Milberger responded the next day by inviting them to review documented damages and photos, an offer the Pulleys did not accept.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 9, 2004, Ralph and Rubye Pulley (tenants) sued Keith Milberger (landlord) in a trial court to recover their security deposit.
- Milberger filed a counterclaim seeking $2,000 in damages for repairs that exceeded the security deposit amount.
- Following a trial before the court, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against the Pulleys.
- The trial court also rendered judgment in favor of Milberger on his counterclaim, awarding him $2,000 in damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
- The Pulleys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Texas Property Code § 92.109, does a landlord act in bad faith by retaining a security deposit and failing to provide a timely, itemized list of deductions when there is extensive damage to the property exceeding the deposit amount, and the landlord has attempted to communicate with the tenant about the damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lang
No. A landlord does not act in bad faith under these circumstances. While failing to return a deposit or provide an itemized list within 30 days creates a statutory presumption of bad faith, a landlord can rebut this presumption. The court reasoned that Milberger was not required to plead the absence of bad faith or the reasonableness of charges as affirmative defenses; his denial of the Pulleys' claims was sufficient. Furthermore, the court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. This evidence included Milberger's status as an 'amateur landlord,' the extensive nature of the damages, and his good faith attempts to communicate with the Pulleys about the damages and costs, even if the communication was not a perfectly itemized list. The evidence also supported the finding that the damages were beyond normal wear and tear and that the retention of the deposit and the additional award for repairs were reasonable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies both procedural and substantive aspects of Texas security deposit law. Procedurally, it establishes that landlords defending against a tenant's claim of bad faith do not need to plead 'absence of bad faith' or 'reasonableness of deductions' as affirmative defenses. Substantively, the decision demonstrates that the statutory presumption of bad faith is rebuttable and that courts will consider the totality of the circumstances. It provides a roadmap for landlords on how to defeat this presumption through evidence of significant damage and good faith communication, impacting how future disputes are litigated by emphasizing factual evidence over strict, technical compliance with the itemization requirement.
