I am a Chester County, Pennsylvania resident who entered a lease/purchase agreement in 2005, and I am now looking to sue my landlord for punitive, treble and compensatory damages in the amount of $506K. I have attached portions of paragraphs from the complaint I drafted. However, I am unsure just how much punitive damages can be claimed. Basically, I am charging the ex-landlord with fraud, unfair/deceptive business practices, unlawfully withholding the security depsoit, and constructive eviction. To substantiate the claims, I have drafted the complaint to include 2 incidents of falsifing utility bills that he wanted me to pay, 1 incident of lying about the antiquity of the house, 2 incidents of disconnecting the electricity (and paying another tenant to change the locks on the basement so that I could not get in to turn the power back on, and 1 incident of not returning my security deposit at all. Please take a look at 10 of the paragraphs in my complaint, and let me know if you think I have a valid case for requesting that high of an amount...or how to calculate the punitive damages portion of the claim.
3. On May, 1 2005, defendants entered into a contract/residential lease with plaintiff to rent aforementioned plaintiff’s address. At that time, plaintiff paid defendant first month’s rent ($1,200), plus last month’s rent ($1,200) plus 1 month security deposit ($1,200) (totaling $3,600) as required by the terms of the lease. Security deposit account was never disclosed. A true and correct copy of this contract is attached as Exhibit A.
4. On September 29, 2005, plaintiff sent correspondence to the defendants outlining necessary repairs to ensure Warranty of Habitability which were never made. Plaintiff also charged in this letter that the defendant fraudulently told plaintiff at lease-signing and initial inspection, that the leased premises was a 100-year old bed and breakfast completely rehabbed by defendant with costs of for which they paid $300,000 to purchase and $187,000 to rehabilitate the property, after plaintiff made it known that she desired to live in a historic property. Plaintiff’s letter also charged defendant with fraudulently stating at lease-signing that the electric and propane meters were metered separately. Defendant indicated that he plaintiff should put electric and propane utilities in plaintiff’s name specifically because plaintiff’s heating and electricity were metered separately from the other 2 tenants in the building. Because of these falsified statements of being a historic property and individual metering, plaintiff is claiming treble damages under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Plaintiff also indicated in said letter that she would no longer pay arbitrary amounts for electric and/or propane utilities, and requested a copy of the utility bill and an amount owed when bills are due. Defendant intermittently provided bills to plaintiff on an inconsistent basis. A copy of the letter with the inclusive list is attached as Exhibit B. When defendant received plaintiff’s letter on September 30, 2005, defendant became verbally abusive to plaintiff, screaming obscenities, and threatened to put the plaintiff ‘out on the street’ if any further attempt is made to exercise plaintiff’s tenant-rights. Plaintiff charges that defendant fraudulently claimed that the utilities were metered separately. Plaintiff seeks treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ malicious and wanton behavior equal to the amount defendant originally stated he would sell the house to the plaintiff for ($487,000) plus the amount of rent paid during the term of tenancy from May 1, 2005 through October 7, 2006 ($19,200) for a grand total of $506,200.
5. On June 27, 2006, the defendant, Mr. Kerrigan, presented a June, 2006 electric bill from the electric utility provider, PP&L in the amount of $920 for the current month stating that the bill was significantly increased due to the use of the pool. I paid the amount requested by the defendant of $600 to cover more than 60% of the electric bill. I later found out from the utility provider that the reason the bill was $920 due to non-payment by the defendant for several months. No payments were made on the account from 2/16/06 until a $250 payment was made by the defendants on 6/15/06. The bill for $920 was actually a cumulative bill from several months of non-payment. Statement of electric utility account is provided as Exhibit C. Plaintiff charges that defendant was fraudulent in providing marked-up utility bills and fraudulently claimed that the utilities were metered separately. Plaintiff seeks treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ malicious and wanton behavior equal to the amount defendant originally stated he would sell the house to the plaintiff for ($487,000) plus the amount of rent paid during the term of tenancy from May 1, 2005 through October 7, 2006 ($19,200) for a grand total of $506,200.
6. On June 27, 2006, the defendant, Mr. Kerrigan, also informed plaintiff that there was a propane bill due in the amount of $800 for which I would be responsible for $500, with a due date of August 3, 2006. I later found out from the utility provider, Martindale Propane, that there was no June bill or bill due in August. Statement of propane account is attached as Exhibit D. When Mr. Kerrigan called the plaintiff on or about August 19, 2006 to request the money for the propane bill, the defendant once again, became verbally abusive, threatening to charge plaintiff with propane bills and rental late payment fees from the previous year, not previously charged by defendant. Plaintiff charges that defendant was fraudulent in providing marked-up utility bills and fraudulently claimed that the utilities were metered separately. Plaintiff seeks treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ malicious and wanton behavior equal to the amount defendant originally stated he would sell the house to the plaintiff for ($487,000) plus the amount of rent paid during the term of tenancy from May 1, 2005 through October 7, 2006 ($19,200) for a grand total of $506,200.
7. On September 12, 2006, defendant faxed a handwritten letter to plaintiff indicating that there will be a new procedure for paying utility bills resulting in a constant monthly utility payment representing 45% of the utility bills for the entire leased property. Plaintiff’s monthly amount was to be set at $268.35. Handwritten letter from defendant is attached as Exhibit E. Plaintiff believed the defendant wanted $268.35 retroactive to the month she moved in. On or about September 13, 2006, defendant called plaintiff to inform her that the amount was to be $314 because additional utility bills had been found.
8. On September 27, 2006, plaintiff sent correspondence to defendants expressing the desire to terminate the lease on the grounds of the inability to pay escalating arbitrary utility bills. However, there was fear in exercising rights of Warranty of Habitability, and because of the historic abusive nature of the defendant, the plaintiff neglected to list the complete reasons for breaking the lease. Copy of plaintiff’s letter requesting termination of lease is attached as Exhibit F.
9. On October 5, 2006 at 3:50 p.m., when the plaintiff’s children arrived from school, they saw defendant, Mr. Kerrigan in the driveway of 101 Mt. Pleasant Road in Honey Brook, PA, and spoke pleasantly to him. When they entered the house, they discovered that there was no electricity in the house. When the children called the plaintiff at her place of employment, they are afraid because they thought ‘something was wrong with the house’. The electricity in the house operates all electrical components of the house, including the well water pump and the furnace igniter. Initially, plaintiff thought that the utility company, PP&L had shut off the service for non-payment of the utility bill, however, conversations with the utility provider asserted that the loss of electricity was not on the part of the utility provider. However, by the time the plaintiff arrived at home at 6:10 p.m., the electricity had been turned on by Mr. Kevin Lowe, one of the other tenants in the building. Mr. Lowe advised the plaintiff that the defendant, Mr. Kerrigan paid him $60 to change the locks on the basement door after he had shut off electrical service by turning off the circuit breakers in the circuit panel box in the basement. At that time, the defendant, Mr. Kerrigan told Mr. Lowe, ‘we just want her to move out’. However, the loss of electrical power also interfered with Mr. Lowe’s water and therefore, habitability. By changing the locks, technically, we were unable to get into the basement to restore our electricity. By doing this, the defendant has interfered with and breached the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and interfered with and breached the Warranty of Habitability as set forth in the aforementioned lease.
10. On October 6, 2006, at 10:52 p.m., the plaintiff witnessed the defendant, Mr. Kerrigan drive into the driveway of the property, park his tow truck in said driveway and re-entered the basement of 101 Mt. Pleasant Road, in Honey Brook, PA, with Ms. Allbrook sitting in the passenger seat of Mr. Kerrigan’s tow truck, and once again, electrical power was lost. The defendant was in the basement for approximately 1 hour disconnecting every wire from the panel box. An argument ensued between the defendant and the other tenant, Mr. Lowe, on Mr. Lowe’s outside stairwell, for helping plaintiff restore electrical power. After the defendant left the property at 11:58 p.m., Mr. Lowe once again re-entered the basement and spent 30 minutes reconnecting wires to restore power to the house. There was no heat, despite temperatures as low as 47 degrees, a copy of the weather report for October 5-6, 2006 is attached as Exhibit G. The defendants’ actions on both October 5, 2006 and October 6, 2006 were malicious and wanton. Plaintiff seeks treble and punitive damages and injunctive relief for defendants’ malicious and wanton behavior equal to the amount defendant originally stated he would sell the house to the plaintiff for ($487,000) plus the amount of rent paid during the term of tenancy from May 1, 2005 through October 7, 2006 ($19,200) for a grand total of $506,200.
11. Over the next several hours on October 6, 2006 and October 7, 2006, the plaintiff made arrangements with several colleagues and acquaintances to flee the rented premises at 101 Mt. Pleasant Road, in Honey Brook, PA together with her children for fear of further retaliation by defendants/landlords, and relocated to another residence. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages including remedy for relocations expenses totaling $3,427. Plaintiff also seeks a restraining order preventing physical, verbal or written communication from defendant.
12. While unpacking her belongings on October 9th, plaintiff discovered a letter from defendant’s attorney Stephen A. Corbman, Esq. dated September 28, 2006, sent via regular mail demanding plaintiff to vacate the premises within 15 calendar days for failure to pay September, 2006 rent in the amount of $1,200, past utility charges which were not charged by defendant until the date of attorney’s letter in the amount of $3,720 and late fees for previous 12 months in the amount of $200 per month totaling $2,400 in late fees, for a grand total of $7,720. However, provisions in the letter were made to avert any legal proceedings by vacating the premises within 15 days. Copy of plaintiffs’ attorney’s letter is attached as Exhibit H. Copy of cancelled check for rent for September 2006 is attached as Exhibit I. Copies of all utility bills received from defendants are attached as Exhibit J. Copies of cancelled checks for utility payments made to defendants are attached as Exhibit K.
13. On October 12, 2006, plaintiff sent defendants a letter via overnight mail informing them that she had vacated the premises and enclosed the key to the rented premises. Plaintiff’s letter indicated that she was aware of defendant’s malicious and wanton intent with regards to shutting off electric utilities. Plaintiff also requested return of her security deposit and/or list of damages to aforementioned leased premises. To date, no response has been made by the defendants. Plaintiff’s letter to vacate is attached as Exhibit L. Therefore, plaintiff seeks double damages in the amount of $2,400 representing twice the amount of security deposit paid at lease signing

