Hand, C. v. Fuller, O.
294 A.3d 468
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Parties executed a written one-year lease in 2002 containing an automatic one-year renewal clause and a provision requiring written, signed changes.
- Tenant remained in the unit for years, later produced an unsigned December 2013 document she called a new lease (changed rent, occupancy, and month-to-month term) and continued to occupy until vacating in 2019.
- Tenant filed suit in Dec. 2019 under Philadelphia’s Lead Paint Disclosure & Certification Ordinance seeking rent abatement and fees for alleged failure to provide a lead-safety certification starting in 2013.
- At close of Tenant’s case, Landlords moved for a compulsory nonsuit arguing (1) the 2013 arrangement was a renewal lease exempt from §6-803 disclosure and (2) Tenant failed to provide the written 10-day notice to cure required by the ordinance; the court granted the nonsuit.
- Trial court and this panel applied the 2012 edition of the ordinance (governing the 2013 lease), interpreting “renewal lease” to include renewals between the same parties even if some terms changed, and concluded Tenant did not give the required written notice; judgment for Landlords was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 instrument was a "renewal lease" (exempt from §6-803 disclosure) | Hand: 2013 document changed rent, term, and occupancy so it was a new lease, not a renewal (citing Aaron). | Fuller: Parties never executed a signed new lease; tenant accepted increased rent and occupancies, creating successive renewals under the 2002 lease. | Court: 2013 arrangement was a renewal between the same parties; §6-803(3)(a) exemption for renewal leases applied, so disclosure remedies unavailable. |
| Whether Tenant was required to give written notice and a 10‑day cure period before suing | Hand: 2017 ordinance (in effect when suit filed) omitted notice; even if notice applied, her repair requests and verbal complaints satisfied the purpose. | Fuller: The ordinance in effect at the time of the asserted violation (2012 Edition) applied and required written notice and 10 days to cure; no such written notice was given. | Court: Applied the 2012 Edition; the written notice/10‑day cure requirement applies to failures to provide disclosure and Tenant did not provide the required written notice—alternative basis to affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Billing v. Skvarla, 853 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appeal from judgment after denial of motion to remove nonsuit)
- Kiely on Behalf of Feinstein v. Philadelphia Contributionship Ins. Co., 206 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2019) (standard and review for compulsory nonsuit)
- Mace v. Atlantic Refining Marketing Corp., 785 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2001) (contract and lease interpretation principles)
- Fidler v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Upper Macungie Twp., 182 A.2d 692 (Pa. 1962) (construction of ordinances/statutes to give effect to all provisions)
- Aaron v. Woodcock, 128 A. 665 (Pa. 1925) (distinguishing ‘‘renew’’ and ‘‘re-lease’’ in lease interpretation)