Immediately after the trial court dismissed the jury, it conducted a bench trial on Aunt and the Students’ remaining claims implicating the UTPCPL and the LTA. Following the bench trial, the trial court concluded that E.S. Management violated the UTPCPL and that Aunt and the Students were entitled to treble damages. Specifically, the trial court found:

[1.] E.S. Management violated the [LTA] provision at 68 P.S. § 250.511a by requiring “a sum in excess of two months’ rent to be deposited in escrow for the payment of damages to the leasehold premises and/or default in rent thereof . . .,” which also is a violation of the provision of the UTPCPL at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi);

[2.] E.S. Management’s failure to inform the Students and [Aunt], either verbally or by writing, when it requested the $5,775.00 deposit, that this sum could be forfeited if the Students chose not to rent the [A]partment is a violation of the provision of the UTPCPL at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi);

[3.] E.S. Management’s requirement that the Students sign its lengthy lease within only 2 days from the time they received the lease is a violation of the provision of the UTPCPL at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi);

[4.] E.S. Management’s false claim that the Students and [Aunt] were responsible for rent for the entire term of the lease and utilities, even though two days after depositing the $5,755.00 they informed E.S. Management they would not be renting the [A]partment, is a violation of the provision of the UTPCPL at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi); [and]

[5.] Pursuant to UTPCPL provision at 73 P.S. § 201-9.2, [the trial court] award[s Aunt] and the Students their court costs, including those incurred with the Magisterial District Judge[.]”

“In response, Aunt and the Students argued that E.S. Management had waived its claim that the UTPCPL is inapplicable to the dispute at hand because it raised the claim for first time in its post-trial motion. They further argued that the LTA applied through the UTPCPL. Aunt and the Students also argued that E.S. Management’s decision to grant them only two days to review the lease was deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL. In addition, they argued that E.S. Management’s claim that Aunt was liable for rent and utilities was a false and deceptive claim under the UTPCPL. Lastly, Aunt and the Students argued that the award of treble damages was appropriate under the circumstances.”

“On appeal, E.S. Management raises five issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages under the [UTPCPL], where the jury determined that there was no contract between the parties, as the UTPCPL requires that there must be a ‘purchase or lease’ of goods or services in order to allow a private party claim?

II. Whether the trial court erred in finding that E.S. Management violated the [LTA] and that that violated the UTPCPL?

III. Whether the [trial] court erred in finding the UTPCPL requires more than a two-day review period for a tenant’s review of a residential lease?

IV. Whether the [trial] court erred in finding that E.S. Management made a “false claim” in litigation and that that violated the UTPCPL?

V. Whether the [trial] court erred in its use of discretion in trebling the damages under the UTPCPL?”

The Superior Court agreed with the Appellees that the first issue raised by Appellants need not be addressed because it was raised for the first time in post trial motions. They had never objected to the application of the UTPCPL during the trial, but only for the first time in post trial motions.

The next issue was whether the trial court erred in holding that collection of $5,585 constituted a violation of Section 250.511a(a) of the LTA, which prohibited collecting more than two months rent as a security deposit.

E. S. Management argued that the amount paid included both security deposit and prepaid rent for the last month.  The trial court did not accept that explanation and neither did the Superior Court. “It is disingenuous for E.S. Management to assert that rent paid twelve months before it is due is not for “default in rent.” In other words, collecting the last month’s rent, addition to a security deposit for damages, also constitutes  security deposit.

This leads to the issue whether collecting an amount in excess of two month’s rent as a security deposit violates Section 201-2(4) (xxi) of the UTPCPL, often referred to as the “catch-all.”  It defines “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” under the statute to include “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the act of requiring payment of a security deposit in excess of two months rent violated the catchall provision of the UTPCPL. However, the trial court did not hold that a violation of the LTA was automatically a UTPCPL violation. “Instead, [the trial court] found E.S. Management’s conduct in collecting the security deposit was deceptive, which created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in violation of the UTPCPL.”

It quoted the trial court opinion: