In May 2013, the property at 1500 N. Markdale #15 in Mesa, AZ 85201 was purchased by Suzanne and Mark Krystinak with their Arizona real-estate agent Sharon Hall, while two tenants who had lived there for 6 years -- David Moss and Samantha Neufeld -- still had an active lease there.
Upon purchasing the property, Suzanne Krystinak immediately threatened to illegally evict David and Samantha, while David and Samantha were on Memorial Day vacation for a week out of the country. At around the same time, Arizona real-estate agent Sharon Hall began threatening David and Samantha about the condition of their property, as documented by email traffic contained in this presentation.
David and Samantha's reaction was to put in a 30 day notice of move-out to get out from under such an oppressive landlord and real-estate agent, and start meticulously documenting the condition of the property during their remaining time at the unit in preparation for a potential court battle, which the situation did come down to.
It is David and Samantha's belief that Arizona real estate agent Sharon Hall was maliciously feeding her remote client Suzanne Krystinak false information about the condition of her property, in order to justify taking as much of David and Samantha's security deposit as possible. It is also David and Samantha's belief that Suzanne Krystinak, the landlord, was purposely trying to take as much of the security and pet deposit as possible in order to perform upgrades and enhancements on her newly purchased property, which she did.
David and Samantha took Suzanne Krystinak (accompanied by her real-estate agent Sharon Hall) to court in the summer of 2014. The case was won by David and Samantha in the amount of $862.00 (case number CC20140799976 at the West Mesa Justice Court).
David and Samantha publicly share this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence they presented in court, in hopes that future tenants of the Krystinaks and people dealing with Arizona real-estate agent Sharon Hall are educated and can fully protect themselves against false accusations and theft.
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Huda City Centre (Gurgaon)
1500 N. Markdale #15, Mesa, AZ 85201 - Full court case against Suzanne Krystinak, and Sharon Hall
1. Maricopa County Justice Courts, Arizona
Case Number: CC2014079976
David Moss and Samantha Neufeld, former
tenants of 1500 N. Markdale #15 in Mesa, AZ
vs.
Suzanne Krystinak
1321 Leonard Drive in Schaumburg, IL
Accompanied by real-estate agent Sharon Hall
2. IT IS ORDERED granting judgment to:
Plaintiff, David Moss and Samantha Neufeld
in the amount of
$862.00
This document presents the case against the Krystinaks and their real-estate
agent Sharon Hall that was presented in court.
The plaintiffs share this document publicly so future tenants of the
Krystinaks and anyone dealing with Arizona real-estate agent Sharon
Hall are aware of the facts and can protect themselves.
3. Summary of this case
• Samantha and David rented 1500 N. Markdale #15 for
6 years, before the property was sold by Rebecca Legg
to Suzanne Krystinak under us.
– When Suzanne took over, we decided to move out as
quickly as possible, because we felt threatened after she
threatened to illegally evict us in 5 days if we didn’t sign
her lease.
• Suzanne Krystinak wrongfully withheld $817 of our
refundable $750 security + $500 pet deposit.
– $710 for “resodding the backyard”
– $107 for “replacing screens”
We request $817 + 2x ($817) be returned to us ($2,451 total) as stated in the
Arizona Tenant’s Rights and Responsibilities Act, Part 6, Section IV, Subsection
D, plus all legal fees required to retrieve our wrongfully withheld deposits.
4. Why we believe these
security deposits were wrongfully withheld
With regards to $710 for “resodding the backyard”:
• The backyard grass died due to negligence on behalf of the new landlord.
• According to the lease agreement, the tenant was never responsible for the
maintenance of the yard.
– The former landlord, Rebecca Legg, acknowledges that, over the 6 years we lived at this property,
the tenants have never been responsible for landscaping, and the water was turned off when the
new landlord bought the house.
– The defendant’s “receipts” for landscaping demonstrate the defendant knew and acknowledges she
was fully responsible for maintaining the yard.
– As demonstrated through several months of photographic evidence, any claims that our 15-pound
dog Milo or the 17-pound Air Force foster dog Wrigley completely destroyed the grass are proven
false.
With regards to the $107 for “replacing screen doors”:
• According to the move-in checklist, there was existing damage to screen doors
including paint and holes, 6 years before the defendant bought the property.
As demonstrated by the move-out checklist, we left the property in fantastic
condition. We were told by the agent who conducted our move-out inspection that
we would not have any money withheld from our deposit. We cared for and treated
this property as if it was our own home during the 6 years we lived there.
5. What the defendant
won’t be able to show
• The text in any lease or document, that says the
tenant was responsible for maintaining the
backyard.
• Where, in the move-in checklist, it says the
screen doors was in perfect condition and free
of holes and other damage when we moved in.
• Pictures of the screen door in the context of the
unit itself.
• The actual $710 bill for “resodding the
backyard”. Because they didn’t resod.
6. What the defendant can’t explain
• If they, the defendants, thought the tenants were responsible for maintaining the
backyard, why did the defendant say they paid for landscaping services?
• “Backyard Repair” of $710 was not for resodding, it was for landscaping with
gravel and an extra patio. How did the $710 bill from Avilez Landscaping for gravel
match up perfectly with the $710 estimate from Schumway Landscaping for sod
• Furthermore, why does Schumway’s $400 estimate for gravel differ so greatly from
the $710 that was actually charged by Avilez Landscaping for gravel? If Schumway
Landscaping quoted $400 for gravel, why would the defendant go with a
convenient and expensive $710 for gravel from a non-competitive company?
• Over email, when told to ask the landscapers whether the dead grass in the
backyard was our fault or theirs, why the defendant turned to Schumway
Landscaping (who was fired and didn’t work there) and not Avilez Landscaping
who they claim they hired? If you really hired a landscaping service, wouldn’t you
ask the ones you hired, and not the ones that were previously fired?
• Why do our time stamped photographs of the backyard demonstrate the grass
wasn’t even mowed during May – end of June 2013? Wouldn’t a landscaping
service at least try to mow the grass?
• David Moss works from home. Why didn’t he see any landscaping services come
to the backyard in May and June 2013, as he had seen each week for years prior?
• If the move-out checklist says the home was left in perfect condition, why is the
landlord trying to extort more money out of us by saying it wasn’t?
7. Overwhelming evidence to prove our case.
1. A timeline of events
2. Both Leases: original lease we maintained with Rebecca Legg for 6 years, and the lease we had with them for 1 month.
3. Several months of photographic evidence of the backyard and small dogs, demonstrating consistent green grass up until
the point at which the defendant took over the property and landscaping services were canceled.
4. High temperatures of 100 – 115 F during May, June, and July 2013.
5. Photographs of rapid grass depletion during June, 2013, when the new landlord failed to provide adequate landscaping
services. Unmowed lawns show no landscaping services were present.
6. Email exchanges between the former landlord and the defendant, demonstrating the tenants were never responsible for
the backyard, the water in the backyard was shut off for 6 weeks, and the defendant knew these facts.
7. Photographs of the screen doors before we moved out, in the context of the home, showing no additional damages vs.
the original move-in checklist.
8. Photographs of the upgrades performed to the backyard using our wrongfully withheld deposits, including desert
landscaping and gravel, more square footage covered, and an extra patio installed.
9. Move-in checklist, highlighting known damage to the screen doors and the fact that the backyard was never the tenant’s
responsibility.
10. Move-out checklist, showing we truly took care of this property, and that the landlord planned to re-landscape the
backyard and replace the carpet anyway.
11. Resodding estimates from a secondary source, showing a significantly lower estimate than what the defendant withheld
from us.
12. Several examples that any agreement we had with the defendant was not kept in good faith.
a. Threatening to illegally evict us in a 5-day window, while we were on vacation
b. Claiming our move-out checklist showed our unit was not in acceptable condition on move-out, asking for more money.
c. Threatening that the golf course behind our house might sue us if we brought the defendant to this court.
d. Example of an automatic rejection policy we ran into preventing us from renting a new home, because of damages cited at
over $500 from this landlord.
e. Defendant failed to provide us with Tenant Rights and Responsibilities Act, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1322(B). Furthermore,
defendant failed to provide us with a copy of the lease signed by the landlord, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1322(B).
8. Conclusions based on the evidence
• We went above and beyond our duties as tenants to leave the house in great shape after living there for 6 years.
• We were never responsible for the yard or landscaping, as proven by the lease and former landlord.
• When our lease with Rebecca Legg ended, our entire security + pet deposit was transferred intact to the new landlord,
with nothing taken or reported as being an issue that would result in our deposit being tapped. There was no walk-through
to determine the conditions of the property at the point at which our new lease began. The property was was
purchased by the new landlord in the condition it was in, screens and backyard included.
• The landlord has always been responsible for repairs to the unit, including screen doors.
• The backyard grass was not affected by the dogs, as demonstrated through several months of time stamped pictures.
• The backyard grass was killed due to landlord negligence from not hiring landscapers to maintain and water the grass
during some of the hottest times of the year in Phoenix. We thought the landlord wanted to get rid of the grass to
upgrade to gravel and desert landscaping, which they did.
• The screen doors were in the same condition on move-out, wear and tear accepted, as they were when Samantha
moved in, as documented on paper and pictures. The defendant bought the property in the condition they did.
• The estimate for re-sodding the grass was too high, vs. other estimates we obtained. It’s either inflated, or the landlord
requested more square footage be installed than originally existed, or they wanted an upgrade.
• We question the authenticity of the receipts for landscaping services provided by the defendant, as they conflict with
other evidence and photographs we have.
• The wrongful withholding of our deposits jeopardizes our ability to rent in the future.
• We provide examples that any agreements we had with the defendant were kept in bad faith by the defendant.
We request $817 + 2x ($817) be returned to us ($2,451 total) as stated in the Arizona Tenant’s
Rights and Responsibilities Act, Part 6, Section IV, Subsection D, plus all legal fees required to
retrieve our wrongfully withheld deposits.
9. Arizona Tenant’s Rights and Responsibilities Act
Part 6, Section IV, Subsection D
https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/TenantRightsResponsibilities.pdf
10. Section 1
Timestamped photographs of
green grass in the backyard, taken
between January 2013 – May 2013
11. Suzanne Krystinak complains that the picture on the
left, taken in August 2007, is not the same as the picture
on the right, taken end of June 2013.
But the quality of grass doesn’t need to be
measured across 6-years.
We are going to focus on what matters, which is
during this time period
January, 2013 – June, 2013
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rebecca Legg was the landlord from August, 2007 – May, 2013
August 2007
Tenants move in
L
e
g
g
i
s
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
f
r
o
m
A
u
g
u
s
June 2013
May 23 - June 2013: Suzanne Krystinak took over as
landlord with Sharon Hall as her agent,
shown in this red sliver on the timeline
Tenants move out
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
18. March 8, 2013 : Green Grass
We see for months, our small dogs caused no problems with the backyard.
The landscapers (Schumway), hired by Rebecca Legg our landlord, did a great job.
19. May 26, 2013
The photos on the next pages were taken and delivered in an email to
Suzanne, time stamped May 26, 2013.
A snippet of this email is shown below, with the date.
20. May 26, 2013 – Summer grass was
planted in early May and grew
beautifully. The green grass is reflected
in the window.
Also note the condition of the living
room screen door in the context of the
home.
21. Section 2
Timestamped photographs
showing rapid grass depletion and
unmowed lawns due to landlord
negligence
May 2013 – End of June 2013
22. May, June, July daily temperatures – Highs of 100 - 115 degrees F through June
Grass without landscaping services or water won’t live through this.
23. June 17, 2013 – 3 weeks after landscaping services were canceled
Notice the yard isn’t even mowed – no landscaper has been on site for 3 weeks.
This picture is one example showing why we believe the receipts produced by Suzanne Krystinak for
“landscaping services” during May and June are fake. Landscaping services would have mowed.
24. June 28, 2013 – Phoenix summer upon us – high of 109 F
5 weeks after landscaping services were canceled, and remaining tufts of grass still aren’t mowed
25. June 30, 2013 – 5 weeks of no water and no landscaping services.
Move out day. High of 115 F on this day.
Compare this photograph to the one taken on June 17, 2013, 2 weeks earlier.
28. Section 3
Photographs of screen doors, showing
no abnormal conditions beyond the
original move-in checklist and normal
wear-and-tear
29. June 30, 2013 – Move out day.
Master bedroom screen door (left) and Living Room Screen Door (right).
30. June 30, 2013 – Move out day.
Master bedroom screen door.
31. June 30, 2013 – Move out day. Living room screen door.
Small tear in the living room screen was reported on the original move-in checklist.
32. June 30, 2013 – Move out day. Living room screen door.
Small tear in the living room screen was reported on the original move-in checklist.
33. June 30, 2013 – Move out day. Dining room screen door.
34. June 30, 2013 – Move out day.
Dining room screen door showing small holes near the handle that were noted in the move-in checklist
35. June 30, 2013 – Move out day, showing doggy door built into the townhouse.
With pets allowed and a doggy door built into the unit, it is expected pets would go outside.
36. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Master bedroom screen door TOP - in the context of the home.
37. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Master bedroom screen door MIDDLE -in the context of the home.
38. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Master bedroom screen door – BOTTOM, in the context of the home.
39. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Master bedroom screen door – BOTTOM, open and in the context of the home.
40. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Living room screen door – TOP, in the context of the home.
41. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Living room screen door – MIDDLE, in the context of the home.
42. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Living room screen door – BOTTOM, in the context of the home. The tear is noted in the move-in checklist.
43. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Living room screen door – BOTTOM, open and in the context of the home.
44. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Dining room screen door – in the context of the home. The tear is noted in the move-in checklist.
45. June 30, 2013 – Move out day
Living room screen door – TOP, in the context of the home.
46. Section 4
Photographs showing upgrades and
enhancements to the backyard, using
our wrongfully withheld security
deposits.
47. The new landscaping in the backyard of
1500 N. Markdale #15
Gravel, not sod.
Extra square footage.
Plus an extra patio.
The defendant used our wrongfully withheld deposits to perform
upgrades on their backyard.
48.
49.
50. Section 5
Email exchanges between the former
landlord and the defendant.
51. Rebecca Legg, former landlord,
to Suzanne Krystinak the new
landlord:
1. Rebecca Legg Vouches for
Samantha as being a good
tenant.
2. Rebecca Legg states: as the
landlord, it was her
responsibility as the landlord to
care for the yard.
52. Note Suzanne Krystinak’s frame
of mind in this email: Who can
we blame?
“Can you please verify if this
was caused by the negligence
of the landscaper or tenant?”
Notice there’s no 3rd option
presented here in the framing of
this question: “Am I, the landlord,
negligent in that I didn’t hire
adequate landscaping services?”
53. Email from the former
landlord Rebecca Legg, to the
new landlord Suzanne
Krystinak, stating:
1. The tenants were never
responsible for the
backyard (for the entire 6
years we lived there).
2. The landscaper was not at
the property to maintain
anything in 6 weeks.
3. The grass takes
considerable amounts of
water to maintain, it’s hot,
and the water was shut off
by the landscaper or not set
to water properly.
54. July 30, 2013
Rebecca Legg, Former
Landlord to both
Samantha and Suzanne
Again, stating:
“As landlord, I completed
various repairs over the
years. Additionally, I paid to
have the front and back
yards maintained and to
have an exterminator come
to the home every quarter.
I canceled these services
the week the condo closed.”
55. Section 6
Move-in and Move-out checklists with
highlighted information
62. Move-out
Checklist
OK / GOOD
All the way
down.
“Don’t worry
about the carpet,
they’re going to
replace it
anyway.”
“Don’t worry
about the
backyard, they’re
going to re-sod it
anyway”
63. Move-out
Checklist
OK / GOOD
All the way
down.
Screen door
holes noted,
matching the
move-in
checklist.
“I expect you to
get your full
deposits back”
65. Result of a perfect move-out checklist?
$817 out of $1250
Deposits Wrongfully Withheld
The defendant provided the reason for withholding the deposit, including an
invoice for new screen doors, and an estimate for replacing sod,
shown on the next pages.
80. How much does bermuda grass sod cost?
http://answers.ask.com/business/other/how_much_does_sod_cost_per_square_foot
Assume the highest cost here: $0.60/sqft
260 sqft * $0.60/sqft = $156 total materials
$710 quoted by Shumway - $156 materials = $554 labor
$350 quoted by Sergio - $156 materials = $194 labor
Big Difference!
81. Possible Conclusions about why the original
estimate from Schumway was much higher
than market value
1. The quote given to Suzanne Krystinak from Buck
Schumway was inflated and not competitive.
2. Suzanne Krystinak is re-sodding more square footage
around the house than the original grass area covered
in the back yard.
3. Suzanne Krystinak is enhancing her own backyard by
re-landscaping it with a desert landscape, adding
features, and removing the grass.
82. Section 9
Demonstrations of bad faith on behalf
of Suzanne Krystinak, the landlord at
1500 N. Markdale #15
84. Demonstration of Bad Faith
Example 1
Summary
Suzanne threatened to illegally evict us within 5 days if we didn’t sign her lease
Suzanne took over the property on May 25, 2013, thus taking over the existing lease that was active on the
property. The existing lease required 28 days notice by either party to vacate the property.
Suzanne wanted David and Samantha to sign her new lease that was worse in every dimension and factually
incorrect, including transforming our “pet deposits” into “pet fees” and inconsistently stating 2 different
amounts for the security deposit. We refused to sign the lease until updates were made.
The next morning, before we had time to submit our update requests, Suzanne threatened to illegally put us
on the streets within 5 days if we didn’t sign her lease.
Samantha and David were on vacation in Mexico, and this ruined the first few days of the vacation having to
deal with the new landlord who came out of nowhere.
The following pages show the conversation taking place over email.
86. Samantha Neufeld:
“I don’t feel comfortable signing this lease…”
“Here are some issue I want to look into first…”
“It’s a holiday weekend and we are going to be out of the country starting tomorrow morning.”
87. [After Suzanne Krystinak shared the active lease]
Samantha: “We’ll review the details of this lease agreement and
let you know of any changes we’d require before signing.”
(even though we were on our way out of the country on vacation starting memorial day weekend)
88. May 26 – Suzanne Krystinak states:
“… if we cannot get a lease agreement signed now, for both your
protection as well as ours, then I am TRUELY [sic] sorry, you and David
will be moving out on June 1, 2013.”
This was 5 days later, while we’re out of the country on vacation…
and the morning after we heard her name for the first time.
89. Demonstration of Bad Faith
Example 2
Our move-out checklist shows the carpet was “Cleaned” and in “Good” condition, and our
photographs confirm this fact. The defendants, in an attempt to take more money from us,
subsequently claimed the property was not left in good condition. They claimed the move-out
checklist shows unacceptable conditions, contrary to the move-out checklist actually said.
It was past their 14-day window for claiming damages, but we provided the COIT receipt anyway.
Move-out checklist shows everything
looks great, including the carpet.
Defendant claiming the move-out checklist was not
in acceptable clean condition, wanting more
money. Received via certified mail.
During our move-out walk through, the very nice agent we interacted with stated,
“Don’t worry about the carpet, they’re going to replace it anyway.”
If Suzanne Krystinak planned in advance to replace the carpets anyway,
why did she have us waste $525 + $50 tip to clean the carpets? We could have saved this money.
90. Demonstration of Bad Faith
Example 3
Suzanne insinuates in a letter sent via certified mail, a threat that a separate
entity -- the golf course behind our former rental unit -- would sue us to re-sod
the golf course. She implies if we took her to this court, something even worse
would happen to us.
We interpret this as intimidation. She threatened us with a 3rd party if we
attempted to retrieve our wrongfully withheld money in this court.
91. Harm this landlord has caused us
in trying to rent a new home
“Rental history reflecting more than $500.00 in damages
will result in denial.”
92. Landlord Violations of A.R.S. § 33-1322
• (E) - Suzanne Krystinak did not provide us with a counter-signed copy of the lease.
She provided us with a blank copy of the lease to sign, which we signed and sent
back. According to A.R.S. § 33-1322(B) this process was broken, and the lease we
have was never countersigned and provided to us.
• (B) - Suzanne Krystinak did not provide us with a reference to the Arizona
residential landlord and tenant act.
93. Section 10
Cleaning services we paid for on
move out.
Suzanne Krystinak and Sharon Hall
lied in court that our place was left in
an “atrocious” state.
We took care of this place for 6 years
as our own home and are greatly
insulted by their false accusations.
94. Cleaning services on move-out
Defendant claiming the move-out checklist was not
in acceptable clean condition, wanting more
money. Received via certified mail.
We maintained this unit as if it was our own home.
The following pages show we hired professional cleaning
company and carpet cleaners during move out.
95. June 29, 2013 – Wave House Cleaning services deep cleans the unit - $138.99 + $40 tip
96. June 29, 2013 – COIT carpet cleaning services and deep cleaning services fully clean
out 1500 N. Markdale #15
97. June 29, 2013 – COIT carpet cleaning services and deep cleaning services fully clean
out 1500 N. Markdale #15 - $525 + $50 tip
98. Section 11
Additional threats we received from
Sharon Hall, Century 21 Arizona real-estate
agent.
We have filed a formal complaint with the
Arizona Department of Real Estate against
Sharon Hall.
99. Additional Threats we received
from the landlord’s real-estate
agent, Sharon Hall
Sharon Hall came into our home while we weren’t home and without
our knowledge, and proceeded to write an email that falsified facts
about our home and defamed us.
She accidentally sent this malicious email to us,
instead of the new home owner.
We have filed a formal complaint against Sharon Hall
with the Arizona Department of Real Estate in the
mishandling of us, the existing tenants,
on this real-estate transaction.
100. SHARON HALL
Accidentally sent us this email
“Even though it says pet deposit it is a
deposit just to have the dogs and non
refundable”
… shouldn’t professional real-estate agents understand the
definition of “Deposit” vs. “Fee”?
Our deposits were always completely refundable.
101. SHARON HALL
accidentally sent us this email
“The doors and screens are bent and ruined The owner
told me the tenant trashed them. That bill alone will take
all of the security.”
Compare this statement to the pictures we have on the house,
and compare with the emailed statements from Rebecca Legg, the
former landlord, that Samantha was a good tenant.
102. SHARON HALL
Accidentally sent us this email
“the pet money will not touch the damage to the
rugs they are ruined from the dogs.”
Compare this statement to the pictures we have on the house,
and to the move-out checklist showing the carpets were
“Cleaned” and “Good”.
103. SHARON HALL
Accidentally sent us this email
“the carpet has stains everywhere and smells of urn” [sic]
Slander. This was our home. Our dogs are well trained, and a
doggy door built into the unit lets them out.
Who would come into a person’s home and trash talk them so maliciously,
except to fabricate ways in which the landlord could retain money from us.
104. Additional Move-out Pictures
From an available library of 455 pictures
We took so many pictures because we felt
threatened from the very beginning in dealing
with Suzanne Krystinak and Sharon Hall.
We left the unit in great shape, which both
Suzanne Krystinak and Sharon Hall lied about
under oath.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113. Conclusions based on the evidence
• We went above and beyond our duties as tenants to leave the house in great shape after living there for 6 years.
• We were never responsible for the yard or landscaping, as proven by the lease and former landlord.
• When our lease with Rebecca Legg ended, our entire security + pet deposit was transferred intact to the new landlord,
with nothing taken or reported as being an issue that would result in our deposit being tapped. There was no walk-through
to determine the conditions of the property at the point at which our new lease began. The property was was
purchased by the new landlord in the condition it was in, screens and backyard included.
• The landlord has always been responsible for repairs to the unit, including screen doors.
• The backyard grass was not affected by the dogs, as demonstrated through several months of time stamped pictures.
• The backyard grass was killed due to landlord negligence from not hiring landscapers to maintain and water the grass
during some of the hottest times of the year in Phoenix. We thought the landlord wanted to get rid of the grass to
upgrade to gravel and desert landscaping, which they did.
• The screen doors were in the same condition on move-out, wear and tear accepted, as they were when Samantha
moved in, as documented on paper and pictures. The defendant bought the property in the condition they did.
• The estimate for re-sodding the grass was too high, vs. other estimates we obtained. It’s either inflated, or the landlord
requested more square footage be installed than originally existed, or they wanted an upgrade.
• We question the authenticity of the receipts for landscaping services provided by the defendant, as they conflict with
other evidence and photographs we have.
• The wrongful withholding of our deposits jeopardizes our ability to rent in the future.
• We provide examples that any agreements we had with the defendant were kept in bad faith by the defendant.
We request $817 + 2x ($817) be returned to us ($2,451 total) as stated in the Arizona Tenant’s
Rights and Responsibilities Act, Part 6, Section IV, Subsection D, plus all legal fees required to
retrieve our wrongfully withheld deposits.
114. We won our case in court, and are passing this
information along to protect anyone else who is at risk
of dealing with Suzanne Krystinak or Sharon Hall.
Please take consistent photographs of the property if
you live under the Krystinaks,
and document everything meticulously. We started
doing that as soon as we started receiving threats from
Suzanne and Sharon.
Please protect yourself against
Suzanne Krystinak, landlord.
Please protect yourself against
Sharon Hall, real-estate agent.
