The Centre County Court of Common Pleas has scheduled an April 27 hearing for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General's case against State College realtor S.C. Sun Corporation.

The state accused the company earlier this year of withholding security deposits from former tenants in violation of Pennsylvania's Landlord Tenant Act. Judge Charles Brown will hear preliminary arguments regarding objections to documents filed in the case by both sides.

Margie Anderson, the deputy state attorney general who is handling the case, said her office recently exchanged briefs with the real estate agency's attorney concerning a motion to remove two names from the state's
lawsuit. Her office's brief was also disputed by the defense, she added.

Stacy Parks Miller, defense attorney representing S.C. Sun Corp., said the state included the names of two individuals in the lawsuit without detailing their grievances against the company and has asked that those names be removed.

After Anderson's office filed a brief in response to that objection, Miller's office filed to strike this brief as well because it violated a rule concerning the use of unreported court opinions that under judicial code should not be used as legal precedent.

The lawsuit against S.C. Sun Corporation, 422 Clay Ave., was filed January 30 and alleges that the realty company illegally withheld security deposits from four former tenants.

State law mandates that a landlord must provide a former tenant with a check equaling his or her security deposit within 30 days of a tenant vacating an apartment or turning in his or her keys. If the landlord must make repairs, a partial amount and a list of damages equaling the amount subtracted from the security deposit must be sent.

If the requirements are not met, a company must pay tenants twice the original security deposit amount.

The original complaint lists four tenants seeking about $9,000 in damages from S.C. Sun Corp. One complainant settled with the realty company in December, but Anderson said her name is still listed because it would help prove wrongdoing by the corporation. But she added that the state would no longer seek monetary damages on behalf of that individual.

Miller said her firm plans to specifically argue that the judge throw out two other individual's complaints because the state failed to specifically mention details of how they were allegedly wronged by the realty company.

"Those two people weren't even mentioned. They just put their names in a chart," Miller said.

Tim Shirey, investigating agent for the State College Bureau of Consumer Protection office, said his office has received a larger number of complaints about landlords than normal since the lawsuit was filed, but he did not know exact numbers. "They are coming on a routine basis," Shirey said.

He added that his office is reviewing the validity of each complaint filed, but he could not comment on whether there are more lawsuits pending against S.C. Sun Corporation or other area realty companies.

"We are working to make sure there are no more violations of the Landlord Tenant Act out there," Shirey said.