J-A28023-13

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

E.S. MANAGEMENT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY KOLMAN, MICHAEL SLESS,

JOEL HERVITZ AND DOUGLAS STANGER

Appellants No. 1794 WDA 2012

Appeal from the Judgment Entered on December 21, 2012

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): AR-10-4464

BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2014

Appellants, Timothy Kolman, Michael Sless, Joel Hervitz, and Douglas

Stanger, appeal from the judgment entered on December 21, 2012, in favor

of E.S. Management and against Appellants in the amount of $21,962.41.

We affirm.

The trial court has ably explained the underlying facts of this case:

[Appellants] are the fathers of four college students [(collectively “Tenants”),] who rented a residential unit from [E.S. Management] pursuant to a written lease. [Appellants] guaranteed the obligations of all four Tenants.

The [Tenants’ l]ease expired [on] July 25, 2009, which was a Saturday. The son of [Appellant] Kolman, Samuel Kolman

[(hereinafter “Samuel”)], was the last to leave the premises. [Samuel] left the day before the expiration date,

on July 24, 2009. On his way out of town, [Samuel]

dropped his key off at [E.S. Management’s] business office and let the person in charge know that the apartment was

vacant. Neither Samuel nor any of the other Tenants

J-A28023-13

- 2 -

supplied a new address at any time to [E.S. Management]. .

. .

The next day[ - on July 25, 2009 – E.S. Management employees] Robert Cohen and Suzanne Marcini . . . went to

the unit to inspect it. There was substantial damage to the apartment, well beyond normal wear and tear, and

eventually, on August 24, 2009, [E.S. Management] sent the list of damages and a demand for payment of the

amount due that was not covered by the security deposit to each [of the Appellants]. [Appellants] refused to pay the

difference and demanded payment of double the amount of the security deposit.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences and the

captioned lawsuit was filed. The docket reflects the various

procedural issues that ensued. The case [eventually proceeded to a bench trial and, at the conclusion of trial,

the court made the following factual findings]:

1. The last Tenant to leave the premises was Samuel.

2. Samuel delivered his key and [the keys] of the other three Tenants to [E.S. Management’s] office around noon on Friday, July 24, 2009.

3. The [l]ease term ended on July 25, 2009.

4. Samuel did not provide a new address for himself or any of the other Tenants at that time nor at any later

date.

5. [The trial court did] not believe Samuel’s testimony that he had sent a written notice regarding the Tenants’ new address a month or two before the [l]ease expired.

6. [Tenant] Ari Stanger [(hereinafter “Ari”)] returned his key to [E.S. Management’s] office by mail on or about August 10, 2009.

7. None of the other Tenants ever provided [E.S.

Management] with a new address at the expiration of the [l]ease or at any other time.

J-A28023-13

- 3 -

8. [E.S. Management employees] Robert Cohen and

Suzanne Marcini inspected the premises on July 25, 2009 and discovered a fair amount of damage which had

to be corrected before the new tenant moved in.

9. Given the condition admitted by the Tenants in the inspection form they submitted at the beginning of the

[l]ease, the damage observed on July 25, 2009 was substantial and was not mere wear and tear.

10. Since the Tenants had not provided new addresses,

the list of damages and charges for repairs was sent to the address of [Appellants, who were the guarantors of

Tenants].

11. The mailing date stamped on the envelope to the

Kolmans and presumably to the other Tenants and [Appellants] was August 24, 2009, 31 days after Samuel

left the key or keys at [E.S. Management’s] office and 30 days after the [l]ease expired.

12. [Appellants] and the Tenants refused to pay the

damage charges and also demanded the return of the security deposit.

13. [E.S. Management] then filed the instant action

against [Appellants] and [Appellants] later filed the first of their four versions of their Answer, New Matter[,] and

Counterclaim. At various times, [Appellants’] pleadings contained counts under the Consumer Protection Law,

[the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(hereinafter “RICO”)], and class action claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). By [o]rder dated

June 20, 2011, virtually all of [Appellants’] [c]ounterclaims, [c]ross-[c]laims, and [c]lass [a]ctions

were dismissed with prejudice by the Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. . . . The current version of the

Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim contains claims under the Landlord and Tenant Act, [68 P.S. §§ 250.101

– 250.602]. It also contains claims of [wrongful use of civil proceedings,] which were not pursued.

Based on the credible evidence, [the trial court] concluded

that, since the Tenants never advised [E.S. Management] of

J-A28023-13

- 4 -

their new addresses, there was no violation of the Landlord

and Tenant Act and [the trial court thus] denied [Appellants’] demand for damages thereunder. [The trial court also concluded that E.S. Management was entitled to the damages it sought in its claim, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court thus entered its verdict, in favor of E.S. Management and against Appellants, in the amount

of $21,406.25].

Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/12, at 1-5 (internal footnote, citations, and

emphasis omitted).

On October 22, 2012, the trial court denied Appellants’ post-trial

motion and, on December 21, 2012, judgment was entered on the verdict.

This timely appeal follows.

Now on appeal, Appellants raise one claim:

Whether the honorable trial court erred in allowing [E.S. Management] to recover against [Appellants] despite the

fact that [E.S. Management] admittedly failed to provide the list of damages to [Appellants] within the 30-day period set

forth in the Landlord-Tenant Act[?]

Appellants’ Brief at 4.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the

certified record, and the opinions of the able trial judge, the Honorable

Judith L. A. Friedman. We conclude that there has been no error in this case

and that the trial court’s opinions, filed on July 13, 2012, October 22, 2012,

and January 4, 2013, meticulously and accurately dispose of Appellants’

claims on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

opinions and adopt them as our own. In any future filings with this or any

J-A28023-13

- 5 -

other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach copies of the

trial court’s opinions.

Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/31/2014