In a heated courtroom dispute, plaintiff Jenny McCrae faced off against her former landlord Devon White, claiming $1,750 for a missing TV and an unreturned deposit. The defendant fired back with a counterclaim of $3,480, alleging unpaid rent, moving and storage costs, and damage to his reputation.
The case unfolded as a grim portrait of mistrust, deception, and unbearable living conditions that spiraled into an ugly legal battle.
The story began when Jenny McCrae, a hardworking tenant with an early morning job, decided to rent a room in Devon White’s property. According to her testimony, she made it clear from the start that she needed a quiet environment to rest properly before her long work shifts.
She paid $750 for the first month’s rent and another $750 as a so-called broker’s fee, allegedly collected by a woman named “Joy.” But the details of that payment — and whether Joy even existed — would soon become a central point of contention.
From the first few weeks, Jenny’s dream of a peaceful home unraveled. She described the rental as a “living hell” plagued by filth, chaos, and fear. Her roommate, she testified, was a drug addict who sold narcotics from the apartment, often hosting loud, disruptive visitors deep into the night.
According to Jenny, noise blared from midnight to 4 a.m., and the bathroom conditions were horrific — she claimed the man regularly left human waste on the toilet, turning the shared space into a nightmare. Despite repeated pleas for help, Devon allegedly took no meaningful action to fix the problem.
Unable to endure the situation any longer, Jenny packed her belongings and moved out on April 14 — a single day after the rental term technically ended. Devon even helped her move out, she said, but then refused to return a key item: her 65-inch television.
She claimed that Devon promised to deliver it later but ultimately kept it, offering only excuses and phone calls that went nowhere. Jenny demanded $1,000 for the TV’s value and $750 for the deposit she never saw returned.
Devon White’s side of the story painted a completely different picture. He portrayed Jenny as a chronic late payer, someone unreliable who “paid in dribs and drabs,” never on time and never in full.
According to him, her departure left unpaid rent and chaos behind. He also accused her of spreading slander, claiming she told others he was harboring drug dealers in his property — a statement he called false and defamatory.
But when questioned about the mysterious “broker fee,” Devon’s credibility began to crack. He insisted that a woman named Joy, acting as a broker, collected the $750 on his behalf. Yet he could not provide any documentation showing Joy’s license, contact details, or even a signed contract.
Even more suspicious, the receipt Jenny received was written in Devon’s own receipt book. Judge Marilyn Milian saw through it immediately — calling it what it appeared to be: a scheme by the landlord to pocket extra cash under the guise of a broker fee.
The judge’s patience thinned as she examined the facts. First, she ruled that the $750 broker fee would count as part of Jenny’s rent, not a separate cost. Devon’s inability to prove any legitimate third-party involvement made the fee unjustified and potentially deceptive.
Next, Judge Milian addressed the conditions of the apartment, acknowledging Jenny’s right to leave. Under the “warranty of habitability” — a legal standard that guarantees livable housing — a tenant is permitted to break a lease if the home environment is unsafe or unsanitary.
Drug dealing, noise, and filth, Milian said, clearly violated that standard. She accepted that Jenny had every reason to move out and that the circumstances were “unacceptable for any tenant.”
However, the television dispute proved more complicated. Devon admitted he still had the TV but claimed exhaustion prevented him from immediately returning it. He said he called Jenny to retrieve it, but she refused. Judge Milian didn’t buy that the landlord had the right to hold the TV hostage as leverage over unpaid rent, but she also didn’t agree that Jenny deserved money for its replacement.
Instead, the judge ordered Devon to make the TV available for pickup, with Jenny responsible for collecting it — even allowing police escort if necessary to ensure peace during retrieval.
On Devon’s counterclaims, things fell apart quickly. His demand for thousands in rent arrears, storage costs, and defamation damages had no evidence behind it. There were no documents showing unpaid rent beyond what Jenny had already covered, no receipts for storage expenses, and no credible proof that Jenny’s statements had caused him financial or personal harm.
Judge Milian rejected all of his counterclaims outright.
In the end, the numbers told the story. The court determined that Jenny’s total rent obligation for three months was $2,250, and that she had already paid the equivalent amount when including the disputed broker fee.
After recalculating and adjusting for minor balances, Devon was ordered to pay Jenny $350. It wasn’t the full $1,750 she wanted, but it was a clear victory against what the court viewed as unfair treatment.
The case reflected a larger issue seen often in landlord-tenant disputes — the power imbalance between renters seeking safe housing and landlords seeking profit. Jenny’s ordeal demonstrated how quickly trust can erode when communication fails, and how an unlawful or unethical charge, even something as small as a “broker’s fee,” can tip a delicate relationship into open conflict.
Judge Milian’s final remarks carried a mix of firmness and empathy. She reminded both sides that trust in a rental agreement is a two-way street — the landlord must provide a livable home, and the tenant must pay fairly and on time. But when one side exploits the other, she said, “the law steps in to balance the scale.”
For Jenny McCrae, the outcome was more than just a $350 check — it was vindication after weeks of living in what she described as “a house of chaos.” For Devon White, the ruling served as a warning that even landlords are not above scrutiny when greed and negligence blur the lines of fairness.
The case ended with the sound of a gavel and a lesson echoing through the courtroom: in every rental, integrity matters more than profit.
