The case stems from Clifford and Brown's tenancy at a residential property managed by 816 Property Management, which they vacated on July 28, 2025. According to their motion, the property suffered from extensive habitability issues including structural rot, unsafe flooring, mice infestation, and mold. The plaintiffs allege the property manager repeatedly cancelled or failed to complete maintenance work orders despite their complaints about the deteriorating conditions.
The situation escalated when another tenant at the property allegedly engaged in threatening conduct toward the plaintiffs' household from August 2024 through March 2025. The motion details how law enforcement responded to incidents at the property in November 2024, and in January 2025, plaintiff Latisha Brown sustained a physical injury, including being struck in the eye. Despite police involvement and documented evidence including police reports and photographs, the property manager allegedly allowed the threatening tenant to remain for approximately 45 days after the January 2025 incident.
Adding to the plaintiffs' claims, 816 Property Management allegedly attempted to collect $7,200 from the plaintiffs via telephone on April 6, 2026, despite a Satisfaction of Judgment being filed on May 30, 2025, that extinguished any alleged debt. The motion characterizes this as an ongoing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, stating the company's 'continued actions during litigation demonstrate willful disregard and support punitive damages.'
The property management company has failed to appear through licensed counsel, failed to answer the complaint, and has not otherwise defended the action, leading to a Clerk's Entry of Default being entered against it. The plaintiffs argue this default, combined with the company's alleged continued unlawful conduct during the litigation, supports both default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and summary judgment under Rule 56.
The plaintiffs' motion asserts multiple legal theories including breach of habitability under Missouri law, negligence for failing to provide safe premises, failure to act despite notice of dangerous conditions, and FDCPA violations for attempting to collect a satisfied debt. They argue that Missouri law imposes a duty on landlords to provide safe and habitable premises, and that a landlord may be liable where it has notice of dangerous conditions or conduct and fails to act.
The total damages sought of $2.015 million include compensatory damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages based on what the plaintiffs describe as the defendant's willful disregard for their safety and legal obligations. The motion argues that the company's conduct both before and during the litigation supports an award of punitive damages.
The case presents a significant example of pro se tenants pursuing substantial damages against a property management company for alleged habitability violations and debt collection misconduct. The outcome could impact how property managers handle maintenance obligations and debt collection practices, particularly when tenants suffer documented injuries from allegedly dangerous conditions.
With 816 Property Management in default and continuing to allegedly violate debt collection laws during the litigation, the case now awaits the court's decision on whether to grant summary judgment or default judgment in favor of the pro se plaintiffs.