1 stated the agreement "shall commence on" with a blank space on which to list the date in
which was handwritten "5-10-08." In the same paragraph at "B" the pre-printed wording stated
"The termination date shall be on" with another blank space to enter a date. In this space the
handwritten date was 5-30-09. Yet, it was pointed out by the plaintiff that it had clearly been
changed (Ex-D).
A review by the Court of this agreement (Ex-C) clearly shows the original date of 4/30/09
had been altered by writing a "5" over the "4" easily discernible to the naked eye. Taken together
with the fact the defendant unequivocally promised the plaintiff a return of her $850 on 4/28/09
without any mention of keeping it due to her failure to terminate the agreement as outlined at
paragraph 34, that he immediately re-rented the premises on 5/1/09 to a new tenant, that
subsequent to 5/1/09 he continued to promise the plaintiff the $850 would be "in the mail"
(Ex-B) without raising the termination agreement and only for the first time raising this defense
[*11]after the plaintiff commenced this action to return the $850
security deposit (an argument based on the contract terms listed on page 1 of the lease that was
not supplied to the Court until requested when only page 2-6 were submitted at the time of the
Court hearing), this Court concludes the defendant never intended to refund the $850 security
deposit to the plaintiff.
The Court finds that this defendant engaged in deceptive conduct by failing as promised to
return the $850 to the plaintiff on 4/28/09 and thereafter on the ground he was allowed to keep
the $850 under paragraph 34 of the lease based upon a 5/30/2009 termination date and by
submitting an altered page one of the lease on which the 4/30/2009 date was changed to