The State College Bureau of Consumer Protection received several more complaints last week against S.C. Sun Corp. for allegedly withholding security deposits in violation of state law.

The complaints follow a lawsuit filed two weeks ago in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, alleging the company illegally withheld several thousand dollars from four students after their leases expired.

The lawsuit seeks action under the state's Landlord Tenant Act, which mandates that landlords must return or account for security deposit money within 30 days of tenants vacating their former apartments.

Tim Shirey, investigating agent for the bureau, said students have called the office since the suit was filed to lodge complaints against S.C. Sun Corp.

The office sent each student an official complaint form. Shirey said any new complaints would be added to the current lawsuit.

Margie Anderson, deputy attorney general in charge of handling the lawsuit, said the litigation is intended to collect damages for former residents and to make sure current tenants are not taken advantage of in a similar way.

Sarah Burney (senior-biochemistry and molecular biology) currently rents from S.C. Sun Corp. Burney, who is not involved with the lawsuit, said she hopes to get her security deposit back when her lease expires. Because of the actions taken by the state against the realty company, she's worried about the quality of her landlord. She said that additional problems during her move-in made her think twice about living there.

"I hope they don't take my deposit, too," Burney said.

Anderson said S.C. Sun Corp. has not answered the charges filed against it Jan. 29. State law allows 20 days for a defendant to respond to charges in cases of this nature.

If the time period expires without the company contending the allegations, a default judgment would be instituted using only information from the prosecution's case, Anderson said.

No court date has been set.

Anderson said the case against the real estate agent seems strong.

"We believe there is a pattern of violations of the Landlord Tenant Act and the Consumer Protection Law," Anderson said.

At least one of the four plaintiffs named in court documents has already settled privately with S.C. Sun Corp. This case would not result in additional financial compensation for that individual but would remain part of the suit to prove wrongdoing by the company.

"If you violate the law, then you're violating the law, and the case will be handled accordingly," Shirey said.

Representatives from S.C. Sun Corp. did not answer telephone calls seeking comment about the case during the last week.