Appeals court reviews landlord‑tenant disputes over rent collection, habitability and attorney fees
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
In an appeal involving a landlord and tenant (Henderson v. Bosco), attorneys disputed whether a landlord improperly sought rent not owed, whether conduct rose to a quiet‑enjoyment violation, and whether awarded attorney fees were disproportionate to damages; the panel heard detailed factual argument and testimony references.
The appeals panel heard argument in a multi‑issue landlord‑tenant appeal brought by landlord Steven Bosco against tenant Kimberly Henderson after a multi‑day jury trial.
Attorney Adam Sherwin, representing the landlord, asked the court to review whether the trial court's assessment of damages, the award of attorney fees and the jury's approach to apportioning claims were legally sound. Sherwin argued the trial court did not adequately document the reasons for a fee award that the appellant says is disproportionate to actual damages and urged remand for more precise findings consistent with Killeen and related authority.
Counsel for the tenant, Joel Feldman, defended the jury's findings, pointing to record admissions that the landlord sought rent that included amounts owed to a prior owner and evidence that the landlord attempted to collect inflated arrears, conduct the jury found to be a substantial interference with tenancy and therefore actionable under the cited consumer‑protection or quiet‑enjoyment theories.
The panel questioned parties on the chronology of notices to quit, the relation between sanitary‑code enforcement and renovation demands, and the calculus used by the trial court in deciding reasonable attorney fees. The matter was submitted after argument.