## Facts

- The Woffords rented and occupied a mobile home in a mobile-home community owned by Cripe and managed by Vavreck.
- The parties’ written lease required monthly rent of \$116.
- The lease included a default clause stating that, upon tenant default, the landlord could “without prior notice” take “immediate possession” and that such action would not be considered an eviction, forcible entry, or withholding of the premises.
- The Woffords fell behind on rent and had been in arrears on portions of their monthly payments since December 1978.
- Due to continuing arrearages, Vavreck decided in September 1980 to retake possession of the mobile home.
- On September 26, 1980, Vavreck served the Woffords with a document titled “Three Day Notice of Nonpayment of Rent,” stating they owed \$619.24 in past-due rent and late charges, demanding immediate payment, and warning that failure to pay would result in “summary proceedings at law to recover possession.”
- The Woffords did not pay as demanded.
- Rather than filing a statutory landlord-tenant action for possession or bringing an ejectment action, Vavreck used self-help: on October 2, 1980, he padlocked the mobile home’s door, terminated water and electric service, and posted a note stating, “We have taken possession of your apartment due to unpaid rent.”
- The Woffords filed a complaint in equity seeking injunctive relief to restore possession and utilities and to stop further self-help measures.

## Issues

1. Must a landlord seeking repossession for nonpayment of rent from an unwilling residential tenant proceed through legal process (statutory landlord-tenant remedies or ejectment), rather than self-help such as padlocking and utility shutoff?
2. Can a lease clause authorizing “immediate possession” without notice validate a self-help lockout and termination of essential services?

## Decision

- The court held that a landlord seeking possession for nonpayment of rent from a tenant who does not voluntarily surrender must use legal process.
- The court rejected the landlord’s use of self-help measures (padlocking the home and cutting off water and electricity) to force the tenants out.
- The court declined to give effect to the lease provision to the extent it purported to authorize repossession without legal process or to re-label the landlord’s conduct as “not” an eviction or forcible entry.
- The court granted injunctive relief restoring the Woffords’ possession and preventing defendants from dispossessing them except through lawful procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A residential landlord may not dispossess an unwilling tenant for nonpayment of rent by self-help; the landlord must proceed through judicial or statutory remedies.
- Contract language cannot waive the requirement of legal process or change the legal character of a lockout and utility termination by declaring it is not an eviction or forcible entry.
- Equity may restrain unlawful dispossession and order restoration of possession and essential services when a landlord bypasses the required legal procedures.

## Conclusion

Wofford v. Vavreck holds that a Pennsylvania landlord cannot use self-help—such as padlocking a tenant’s mobile home and shutting off utilities—to retake possession for nonpayment of rent, even if the lease purports to allow “immediate possession” without notice; the landlord must instead obtain possession through the legal processes provided by statute or through ejectment, and equitable relief is available to restore the tenant to possession.


Wofford v. Vavreck, 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 444 (1981)