SCOLARO v. PAVILION PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

[1] Jack Scolaro petitions for rehearing following our memorandum decision affirming the small claims court's order awarding him $329.70 plus court costs. We grant rehearing and affirm our original decision.

[2] In our initial decision, we addressed a lease between Scolaro and Pavilion Properties Management LLC (“Pavilion”) and stated that “[w]e review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard with due deference paid to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility.” Scolaro v. Pavilion Props. Mgmt., LLC, No. 25A-SC-1222, 2025 WL 3443185, at *2. We also stated in part: “While Scolaro discovered live roaches in Unit 6 on the first day specified in the Lease, the record reveals that [Mark] Hoffman[, one of the members and owners of Pavilion,] testified that Pavilion contacted Yes Pest professionals to treat the unit immediately after receiving Scolaro's complaint and that ‘they were out the next day to treat it.’ ” Id. at *4 (quoting Transcript Volume II at 37). In his petition for rehearing, Scolaro argues that “[t]his particular testimony from Hoffman, however, was corrected on recross, confirming that Pavilion did not respond to Jack Scolaro's complaint by having Yes Pest professionals out to Unit 6 the next day.” Petition at 3.

[3] On recross-examination, Hoffman examined Plaintiff's Exhibit 24, which was an email dated August 16, 2023, from a representative from Yes Pest indicating what Yes Pest had done. See Transcript Volume II at 38; Exhibits Volume III at 121. Specifically, the August 16, 2023 email stated:

Exhibits Volume III at 121. Based upon this email alone, we cannot say that Pavilion did not request service from Yes Pest on July 26 or 27, 2023, or that Yes Pest did not provide any service to Unit 6 on July 26 or 27, 2023. Exhibit 24 also includes emails dated December 28, 2023, but we cannot say that these emails impact Hoffman's testimony.

[4] During recross-examination, Hoffman also examined Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, which he identified as a maintenance request that Scolaro submitted for the infestation. Transcript Volume II at 38. A part of Exhibit 5 contains the following:

Exhibits Volume III at 40. This exhibit appears to indicate that the property manager made some request on July 26, 2023. Id. (“Requested by Property Manager on 07/26/2023 3:08PM”). Again, this exhibit does not appear to conflict with Hoffman's testimony that Pavilion requested service from Yes Pest immediately after receiving Scolaro's complaint and that Yes Pest was out the next day to treat it. To the extent Exhibit 5 stated in part that “[t]his request was completed on 09/05/2023,” id., Hoffman testified that “when we are using third-party vendors such as YES Pest Control, we do not mark the uh, the report complete until we receive the invoice from the pest control, or third-party vendor, so, um, often times that can be 30, 40 days before we get that in the mail. Sometimes, a little quicker, but.” Transcript Volume II at 19. In its order, the trial court found in part: “The maintenance request put in by Scolaro was not marked as completed by Pavilion until September 5, 2023, however maintenance requests are not marked as completed until Pavilion is invoiced by the contractor.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 12.

[5] At some point during recross-examination, Scolaro's counsel referenced Plaintiff's Exhibit 22, which is a five-page Work Order History for Unit 6. This exhibit provided in part:

Exhibits Volume III at 117.

[6] Scolaro's counsel also referenced Plaintiff's Exhibit 28, which is an invoice from Yes Pest dated July 25, 2023, which mentions Unit 6 and states in part: “Vacant unit. Sprayed unit throughout. Seen a few live roaches. Es 7/25/23.” Id. at 130. Exhibits 22 and 28 do not appear to conflict with Hoffman's testimony.

[7] During the recross-examination, Scolaro's counsel did not specifically ask Hoffman if he was reconsidering or retracting his testimony that Pavilion contacted Yes Pest professionals to treat the unit immediately after receiving Scolaro's complaint and that they were out the next day to treat it. Indeed, during the recross-examination, Hoffman testified that “what you're [sic] exhibit is showing on, [Scolaro] said he reported it the day that he moved in, the 26th, the work order. And then it shows that it was completed on the 27th because we got the people- we got YES control out there as quickly as possible to get that done.” Transcript Volume II at 39. Based upon our review of the cross-examination and the referenced exhibits, we cannot say it is necessary to disturb our initial decision.

[8] For the foregoing reasons, we grant rehearing and reaffirm our previous decision.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.