Columbia, SC – An honors student from Benedict College was awarded a substantial $692,000 in damages after a legal battle that highlighted tenant rights and landlord responsibilities under South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The verdict, reached after a four-day trial and three hours of jury deliberation, included punitive damages signaling a firm stance against negligent landlord practices.
Ansel Postell, a recent magna cum laude graduate with a degree in cybersecurity, returned to his apartment in July 2022 to find all his belongings gone, disposed of by his landlord, Campus Advantage, operating as The Rowan. Despite his mother having prepaid $3,810 covering six months of rent, the company had cleared out his unit, giving away possessions that included valuable electronics and a custom-built computer estimated at over $6,000.
Attempts to reach a settlement with the company were initially met with acknowledgment of the mistake, yet subsequent requests for compensation were denied. This prompted Postell and his mother to pursue legal action, alleging not only the unlawful seizure of Postell’s property but also breaches in rental contract and negligence by the landlord in supervising its employees.
The jury’s decision encompassed $230,000 in actual damages for Postell’s lost belongings and an additional $462,500 in punitive damages, reflecting the seriousness of the company’s missteps. “I’m glad I was given the opportunity for this to be taken up in court, and the jury was able to make a decision on the evidence we provided,” Postell said, emphasizing the importance the court played in addressing his grievances.
The compensation could potentially be tripled as the jury found Campus Advantage violated state laws tailored to protect consumer rights. Todd Lyle, Postell’s attorney, highlighted the possibility of triple damages under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, which could significantly increase the financial implications for the defendants.
The defense appeared to question the authenticity of Postell’s claims regarding the value and amount of possessions lost. However, documented evidence presented by Postell, which included emails and a meticulously detailed list of belongings, strengthened his case.
Adding to the financial impact, the defendants are required to pay two years of interest on the damages at an annual rate of 8%, as noted by Lyle during post-trial comments. This accrued interest is a further penalty for the defendants’ initial refusal to settle the claims at significantly lower demands made by Postell’s legal representation.
Highlighting the obstinance of the defense, Lyle mentioned that an earlier settlement offer of $75,000 had been rejected by the defendants, who later proposed a meager $7,500 settlement just months before the case went to trial. This disparity underscored the defendants’ misjudgment of the case’s gravity.
This landmark case not only resulted in a significant financial judgment but also serves as a stark reminder and warning to landlords regarding the potential repercussions of disregarding tenants’ rights and contractual obligations. Judge Milton Kimpson, who oversaw the proceedings, and the decisive jury verdict together underscore a rigorous judicial stance on protecting individuals’ rights against corporate negligence and malpractice in rental agreements.
Defendants’ attorneys Charles Blackburn and Timothy VanDenBerg declined to comment on the verdict, leaving the community to reflect on the broader implications of this legal battle for tenants and property managers alike.
This case may very well become a significant precedent, emphasizing the importance of diligence and responsibility in property management, alongside upholding the rights of tenants under the law.