Gross v. Schoenbeck ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
January 21, 1999
GERY L. GROSS, ) C/A NO. 01A01-9803-CV-00140
) Cecil W. Crowson
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Appellate Court Clerk
)
)
)
)
v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
) MONTGOMERY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
)
)
)
)
STEVE SCHOENBECK and )
RITA SCHOENBECK, )
) HONORABLE JAMES E. WALTON,
Defendants-Appellees. ) JUDGE
For Appellant For Appellees
TROY L. BROOKS NO APPEARANCE
The Kennedy Law Firm
Clarksville, Tennessee
O P I N IO N
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
1
This is a landlord-tenant dispute. Following a bench
trial, the court below awarded the plaintiff, Gery L. Cross, a
judgment for $750 against the defendants, Steve Schoenbeck and
Rita Schoenbeck. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the
amount of the award, appealed. He presents one issue for our
review: Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s
award of damages?
I.
The plaintiff rented a house to the defendants in May,
1993. The rental was not reduced to writing. The house was some
20 years old and in need of repairs. During the 46 months that
the defendants occupied the premises, the plaintiff performed a
minimum amount of work to maintain or improve the condition of
the house.
The plaintiff sued to recover for the cost of repairs
and maintenance to the rented premises. A real estate appraiser,
who was called as a witness for the plaintiff, identified these
repairs as the reglazing and repair of the exterior windows; the
replacement of broken shutters; the replacement of all carpet and
pad; the repainting of the entire interior; the replacement of
doors; the replacement of kitchen vinyl; and other items. The
appraiser stated that most of these items were in the nature of
maintenance.
The plaintiff also seeks to recover rent that he claims
is in arrears.
2
The plaintiff contends that the abuse to the interior
of the house by the defendants’ dogs and the defendants’ general
lack of upkeep of the property are the causes of the extensive
repairs that are now required. The defendants argue that the
house was in a state of disrepair when they first occupied it,1
and that they withheld one month’s rent because the hot water
heater did not work. The defendants also testified that near the
end of their tenancy, they had to nail the doors shut to keep the
plaintiff from entering at will, since he had moved into the
basement of the house.2
Upon appeal from the Montgomery County General Sessions
Court, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $450 in back rent;
$250 for damage to the carpet; and $50 for repairs to a shower
door, for a total judgment of $750. After a motion for additur
or new trial was denied by the trial court, the plaintiff filed
this appeal.
II.
We review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo
upon the record of the proceedings below. These findings come to
us with a presumption of correctness, which we must honor unless
the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Rule 13(d),
1
Two witnesses testified on behalf of the defendants regarding the
condition of the house around the time that the defendants first occupied the
premises.
2
The plaintiff testified that the basement was not rented to the
defendants. He moved into the basement when his girlfriend asked him to move
out of her house.
3
T.R.A.P.; Wright v. City of Knoxville, 898 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tenn.
1995); Catlett v. Chinery, 952 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tenn.App. 1997).
After hearing extensive evidence from both sides and
viewing photographs of the alleged damage, the trial court found
that the defendants had moved into a house that was “liveable,”
but in need of repairs. It found that the plaintiff had known
that the defendants had children and dogs, and thus had to have
known that there would be additional wear and tear on the house
during the defendants’ tenancy. It further found that most of
the plaintiff’s requested repairs represented normal costs of
owning and renting residential property.
Plaintiff argues that tenants have a duty to leave the
premises in tenable repair at the expiration of the lease. He
refers us to T.C.A. § 66-28-506.3
Under the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
(“URLTA”), codified at T.C.A. § 66-28-101, et seq., both
landlords and tenants have duties to maintain property. The
plaintiff relies on T.C.A. §66-28-506 to sustain his position
that the defendants in this case are liable for all of the
3
T.C.A. § 66-28-506 provides as follows:
If there is non-compliance by the tenant with § 66-28-
401 materially affecting health and safety that can be
remedied by repair, replacement of a damaged item or
cleaning, and the tenant fails to comply as promptly
as conditions require in case of emergency or within
fourteen (14) days after written notice by the
landlord specifying the breach and requesting that the
tenant remedy it within that period of time, the
landlord may enter the dwelling unit and cause the
work to be done in a workmanlike manner and submit an
itemized bill for the actual and reasonable cost or
the fair and reasonable value thereof as rent on the
next date when periodic rent is due, or if the rental
agreement has terminated, for immediate payment.
4
deficiencies identified by the real estate appraiser. We
disagree.
The “underlying purposes and policies” of the URLTA are
set forth at T.C.A. § 66-28-103, which provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
(a) This chapter shall be liberally construed
and applied to promote its underlying
purposes and policies.
(b) Underlying purposes and policies of this
chapter are to:
* * *
(2) Encourage landlord and tenant to maintain
and improve the quality of housing;
* * *
However, as we read the provisions regarding general maintenance
by the landlord and tenant,4 the landlord is responsible for
making all repairs to “put and keep the premises in a fit and
habitable condition.” T.C.A. § 66-28-304(a)(2). The evidence at
trial does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding
that the general repairs -- other than $50 for damage to a shower
door and $250 for carpet damage -- were the plaintiff’s
responsibility as landlord.
On the issue of rent, the trial court found from the
evidence that one month’s rent of $450 was due. Our review of
the record persuades us that the evidence does not preponderate
against this award.
4
The relevant statutes are T.C.A. § 66-28-304 and T.C.A. § 66-28-401.
5
III.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on
appeal are taxed against the appellant. This case is remanded to
the trial court for enforcement of the judgment and collection of
costs assessed there, all pursuant to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
6