Wofford v. Vavreck
1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 206, 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 444 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Pennsylvania, a landlord seeking to repossess leased premises from a tenant for nonpayment of rent must do so through legal process, either by an action under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 or an ejectment action, and may no longer resort to self-help eviction.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are tenants of a mobile home community owned by defendant Cripe and managed by defendant Vavreck.
- Plaintiffs occupy a mobile home under a written lease agreement specifying a monthly rent of $116.
- The lease agreement included a clause granting the landlord the option to take immediate possession without prior notice to the tenant in the event of default, treating the lease as expired, or to declare the lease null and void and demand possession using remedies provided by law.
- Plaintiffs had been in arrears on portions of their monthly rental payments since December 1978.
- In September 1980, due to continual arrearages, defendant Vavreck decided to retake possession of the mobile home.
- On September 26, 1980, defendant Vavreck served plaintiffs with a "Three Day Notice of Nonpayment of Rent," demanding $619.24 and stating that failure to pay would result in summary legal proceedings.
- On October 2, 1980, after no overdue rent was received, defendant Vavreck padlocked the door of the mobile home, terminated water and electricity supplies, and placed a note on the door stating possession was taken due to unpaid rent.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought suit, seeking both a preliminary injunction to restore them to possession of the mobile home and a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from ever dispossessing them without resort to a proceeding at law.
- The court granted the preliminary injunction, restoring plaintiffs to the mobile home pending final disposition of the lawsuit.
- This court (Court of Common Pleas) is now deciding the request for a permanent injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a landlord seeking repossession of leased premises for nonpayment of rent from an unwilling tenant proceed solely through legal process?
Opinions:
Majority - THOMAS, P.J.
Yes, a landlord seeking to regain possession of leased premises from a tenant for nonpayment of rent must do so through legal process, as the common law self-help remedy has been effectively abolished by evolving case law and public policy. The court first rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 abolished common law self-help, finding no clear legislative intent in the 1951 Act to outlaw such evictions, as it was primarily a codification of prior statutes, not a repeal of common law principles. However, the court explicitly found self-help evictions for nonpayment of rent to be "dead for other reasons." Citing Pugh v. Holmes and Griffith v. United Airlines, Inc., the court affirmed its judicial duty to reappraise and abandon old common law doctrines inconsistent with contemporary justice and social welfare. The court identified several critical public policy reasons for abandoning self-help: (1) it significantly increases the potential for violent confrontations between landlords and tenants; (2) it is an disorderly process that affords tenants essentially no rights, thereby raising serious due process concerns as articulated in Fuentes v. Shevin; (3) it undermines the judicial obligation to examine leasehold forfeitures with close scrutiny, as forfeitures are "odious and must be strictly construed" (Elizabethtown Lodge No. 596 v. Ellis); and (4) it would critically undermine the recently recognized implied warranty of habitability applicable to all residential leases (Pugh, supra), by allowing landlords to effectively subvert their obligation to provide habitable premises through the threat of self-help eviction against tenants withholding rent for breach of that warranty. The court referenced several decisions from sister common pleas courts that had granted injunctive relief against self-help evictions, reinforcing the notion that the Landlord Tenant Act of 1951 and related procedural rules provide the exclusive and reasonable legal means for recovery of possession. The court concluded that landlords must exclusively use statutory remedies or ejectment actions.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered landlord-tenant law in Pennsylvania by abolishing the common law right of self-help eviction for nonpayment of rent, even when a lease contractually permits it. By requiring landlords to utilize formal legal processes, the decision prioritizes orderly dispute resolution, protects tenant rights, and reinforces broader public policy considerations like due process and the implied warranty of habitability. It reflects a judicial trend towards greater tenant protections and fundamentally shifts the power dynamics in landlord-tenant relationships, compelling landlords to engage with the legal system rather than resorting to extra-judicial measures. This ruling sets a precedent that balances property rights with fundamental tenant protections, influencing future interpretations of landlord obligations and tenant remedies.
