Cannon v. Wesley Plantation Apartments
| Citation | 256 Ga. App. 244,568 S.E.2d 137 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A0343.,A02A0343. |
| Parties | CANNON v. WESLEY PLANTATION APARTMENTS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Felipe Cannon, pro se.
Christie, Toreno & Hatcher, Carrie L. Christie, Angela F. Carson, Atlanta, for appellees.
Felipe Cannon sued Wesley Plantation Apartments, alleging that his former landlord wrongfully retained a security deposit and fraudulently demanded additional money. Wesley Plantation denied Cannon's allegations and counterclaimed, asserting that it was entitled to retain the security deposit. Wesley Plantation also sought an additional $543 for excessive damage to the apartment and payment of attorney fees pursuant to the lease agreement. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of Wesley Plantation, and Cannon filed this appeal. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
Cannon notified Wesley Plantation of his intent to surrender the apartment on September 1, 1999. That same day, Gina Eads, an assistant manager at the complex, conducted a walk-through of the apartment with Cannon. According to Eads, she noted damage to the apartment that was not normal wear and tear. Eads then filled out a form noting the damaged areas, which included the carpet, the kitchen countertops, and the vinyl in the kitchen. Eads asked Cannon to sign the form, but he refused and claimed that the damage was normal wear and tear.
According to Wesley Plantation, the cost to repair the apartment was $751, which was offset by Cannon's $100 deposit. Within three days of the September 1 walk-through, Wesley Plantation mailed to Cannon's last known address a "Statement of Security Deposit Accounts" demanding that Cannon pay $651. In October 1999, Wesley Plantation mailed Cannon a revised statement, reducing the amount owed to $543. Wesley Plantation did not receive payment from Cannon, and it turned the matter over to a collection agency.
In May 2000, Cannon sued Wesley Plantation,1 alleging that the complex had "wilfully breached [his] contractual rights," "wilfully failed and refused to return [his] security deposit" in violation of OCGA §§ 44-7-33, 44-7-34 and 44-7-35, and The trial court ruled against Cannon and in favor of Wesley Plantation on its counterclaims, and this appeal ensued.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Cannon contends that the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate his claims "in Accordance with Stand [sic] Case Law." Cannon quotes Oastler v. Wright2 for the proposition that "in cases of doubt, in contests between landlords and tenants, the issue will be resolved in favor of the tenant."3 Cannon extrapolates from this sentence that, in all disputes between landlords and tenants, the tenant should win because the trial court must view the evidence in favor of the tenant. He then points to his own self-serving testimony and contends the trial court should have viewed this evidence "in the light most favorable" to him.
In attempting to interpret Oastler, Cannon grossly mischaracterizes the legal principles involved. Initially, we note that the quote from Oastler refers to "cases of doubt," not all disputes. Moreover, that case is factually distinguishable. Oastler involves a forfeiture stipulation in a lease that the landlord attempted to enforce through a dispossessory action. The sentence preceding that quoted by Cannon is "[s]tipulations for forfeitures in leases are not favored by the courts."4 As the parties had mutually departed from the terms of the lease, our Supreme Court declined to enforce a forfeiture stipulation based on late payment of rent where no demand for rent had been made.5 Thus, contrary to Cannon's contention, Oastler is not the legal equivalent of baseball's custom that a tie goes to the runner. In other words, when there is contradictory evidence in landlord-tenant disputes, the factfinder is not required to favor the tenant.6
2. In his second enumeration of error, Cannon maintains that the trial court erred in finding in favor of Wesley Plantation on its counterclaims. In reviewing this alleged error, we note that Cannon's mistaken belief that his testimony was entitled to greater deference colors his entire argument. Nonetheless, to the extent Cannon argues that legal error was committed, we address his contention on appeal.7
At the crux of Cannon's complaint is his contention that the evidence demanded judgment in his favor. In reviewing such contention, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to support the trial court's judgment.8 Moreover, in a bench trial, the trial court is the factfinder, and we will uphold its findings on appeal if there is any evidence to support them.9
Cannon contends that he was entitled to the return of his security deposit based upon Wesley Plantation's failure to comply with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolson v. Sistrunk
...v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 316 Ga.App. 526, 729 S.E.2d 649 (2012) (hereinafter “McRae ”); Cannon v. Wesley Plantation Apartments, 256 Ga.App. 244, 246 –247(2), 568 S.E.2d 137 (2002). However, “[t]he plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines tha......
-
Alexander v. Watson, A04A2166.
...claim for specific performance. 2. See Lloyd v. Hardman, 261 Ga.App. 894(1), 583 S.E.2d 925 (2003); Cannon v. Wesley Plantation Apartments, 256 Ga.App. 244, 247(2), 568 S.E.2d 137 (2002); Parrott v. Fairmont Dev., 256 Ga. App. 253, 254(1), 568 S.E.2d 148 3. See id. 4. (Emphasis supplied.) 5......
- Yang v. Washington
-
Hicks v. Newman, A06A2119.
...in original.) Id. at 23-24, 528 S.E.2d 557. 6. See id. at 25, 528 S.E.2d 557. 7. See id. 8. See Cannon v. Wesley Plantation Apts., 256 Ga.App. 244, 246, n. 7, 568 S.E.2d 137 (2002). 9. (Emphasis supplied.) 10. In fact, the time for filing discovery had apparently expired. 11. See Hurley v. ......
-
Insurance - Stephen L. Cotter, Stephen M. Schatz, and Bradley S. Wolff
...App. 248, 568 S.E.2d 135 (2002). 89. Id. at 248, 568 S.E.2d at 136. 90. Id. 91. Id. at 248-49, 568 S.E.2d at 136-37. 92. Id. at 249, 568 S.E.2d at 137 (quoting Hartford Accident, 139 Ga. App. at 388, 228 S.E.2d at 323). 93. Id. 94. 268 Ga. 343, 489 S.E.2d 803 (1997). 95. Id. at 344, 489 S.E......
-
Real Property - Linda S. Finley, Scott H. Michalove, and James S. Trieschmann, Jr.
...577. 140. Id. 141. Id. 142. Id. at 758, 580 S.E.2d at 578. 143. Id. 144. Id. at 759, 580 S.E.2d at 579. 145. Id. 146. Id. 147. Id. 148. 256 Ga. App. 244, 568 S.E.2d 137 (2002). 149. Id. at 244, 568 S.E.2d at 138. 150. Id. at 245, 568 S.E.2d at 138. 151. Id. 152. Id. at 246-47, 568 S.E.2d at......