Court Enters Take Nothing Judgment in Former Tenants' Security Deposit Lawsuit

Following a bench trial, a Bexar County Judge entered a Take Nothing Judgment in a lawsuit filed against D'Ann Harper Property Management Corporation by the former tenants of a managed property in San Antonio, Texas. Trey Wilson represented the Defendant in the suit.

The tenants filed their suit when -- after vacating the property -- the property manager withheld a portion of the security deposit to pay for damage to a door frame. The damage occurred during the term of the lease, but the Tenants demanded that the landlord make and pay for the repairs. Citing a provision in the standard TREC lease form that requires tenants to pay for all repairs to doors, windows and screens, the landlord refused. Thereafter, the tenants vacated and filed suit claiming that their security deposit was wrongfully withheld.

After considering the lease, the Tenants' testimony and various other exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court granted a verdict in favor of the property management company, and denied all of the Tenants' claims.

Landlord's Remedies When Tenants Abandon Leased Premises

As a real estate lawyer in San Antonio, I am frequently asked about a Landlord's options upon learning that a Tenant has moved-out without notice, or who simply abandoned the leased premises before a lease ends. The Texas Supreme Court has recognized four distict causes of action that a landlord may assert against a tenant who breaches a lease by abandoning the premises:

(1) maintain the lease and sue for rent as it becomes due;
(2) treat the breach as an anticipatory repudiation, repossess, and sue for the present value of future rentals reduced by the reasonable cash market value of the property for the remainder of the lease term;
(3)treat the breach as anticipatory, repossess, re-lease the property to a new tenant, and sue the original tenant for the difference between the contractual rent and the amount received from the new tenant; or
(4) declare the lease forfeited (if the lease so provides)and relieve the tenant of liability for future rent.

See Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 293, 300 (Tex. 1997).

However, it is important to remember that a landlord has a duty to mitigate its losses/damages when a tenant abandons the leased premises and stops paying rent. Id., at 295–300. This principle recognizes that a landlord who claims anticipatory breach has a duty to mitigate because the landlord’s claim is contractual in nature. Id. at 300.

Further, the Texas Legislature has codified the landlord’s duty to mitigate as section 91.006 of the Property Code. See TEX.PROP.CODE ANN.§ 91.006 (Vernon 2007). That same section prohibits, and makes "void," lease terms that attempt to exempt a landlord from a liability or duty to mitigate its losses. Id.