Three University students will be allowed to stay in their apartment after defeating on Monday morning an eviction notice given by Burnham 310, 310 E. Springfield Ave.

Roommates Kevin Kung and Justin Taylor, juniors in LAS, and Zernyu Chou, junior in Engineering, were served an eviction notice in early December because they had presented a document to Burnham’s management that said they did not have to pay rent until Jan. 1, Kung said.

During Monday’s court session, Burnham 310 property manager Theresa Kamerer said that Kung and his roommates should not have had the document and that they attempted to present the document to management in order to evade paying the rent. The management considered this a breach of the lease.

Kamerer declined to comment after several attempts to contact her prior to Monday’s court session failed. No other Burnham representative could be reached for comment for this article.

Kung’s attorney argued Monday that the accusation of breaching the lease was vague, and the judge ruled in favor of the tenants.

“We are obviously pleased with the outcome of the trial and are glad to have this incident behind us,” Kung said in an e-mail.

“We hope students take great care in their choice of residence and consult with the Tenant Union before they sign any lease.”

Tenants confused by landlord’s changes

Residents of Burnham 310 were notified during the summer that their apartments would not be ready for the move-in date specified in their lease agreements.

On July 11, an addendum to the original lease was sent to tenants promising that Burnham 310 would reimburse all rent paid during the displacement period, as long as they lived in buildings approved by Burnham 310.

Patt said the tenants reasonably assumed they would be paid back when they were finally allowed to move into Burnham 310.

However, the management decided to reimburse the tenants on a prorated scale, which means that tenants would receive a credit off their rent every month until the lease terminated.

The tenants were not informed of this new reimbursement plan, nor did they sign a contract agreeing to it, Patt said.

No representative from Burnham would comment.

Confusion about Burnham’s reimbursement plan and other agreements between the new apartment complex’s management and its tenants have resulted in several complaints at the University’s Tenant Union, according to Tenant Union coordinator Esther Patt.

“What I have been observing is that there is a lot of deferential treatment going on and nobody really seems to be clear and confident of where they stand with Burnham 310 at this point,” said Susan Hessee, the attorney from Student Legal Services who defended Kung and his roommates.

Patt said she received four complaints about Burnham 310 in the first three months it was opened to the tenants.

“In Champaign-Urbana, most landlords don’t have four complaints in five years and Burnham 310 has had four complaints in three months,” Patt said. “Burnham 310 has not gotten off to a good start in this town.”

Patt said at least one other person has received an eviction notice from Burnham. A female tenant who cannot be named for confidentiality reasons filed a complaint at the Tenant Union.

Patt said the woman thought she did not have to pay December rent because she believed Burnham 310 owed her money from the displacement, a situation similar to Kung’s.

The woman received the eviction notice but paid the rent, so the case was dropped, Patt said.

Patt said she believes Burnham’s reimbursement method is unfair to the tenants because the method was not detailed in the addendum.

Accusations of theft add to legal troubles for tenants

Kung was confused about the reimbursement plan after he moved into the building in mid-November.

Upon moving in, Kung asked Burnham’s business office whether he would have to pay December rent.

Kung said he was given a document that contained a line saying rent would not have to be paid until December.

But that line was crossed out on the copy he was given, and December was replaced with January.

The document also contained the signature of Mary Herrold, business developer for Marquette Management, the company that oversees Burnham 310.

In an e-mail Kung sent to Herrold on Dec. 1 to verify the document, he asked her to advise him what to do because rent would have been due that day.

He said he never received a response back to the e-mail or his phone calls.

Herrold could not be reached by phone.

Kung said Kamerer called him shortly after and asked him to bring the document to the office so Burnham representatives could make a photocopy of it.

Kung said he was under the impression that if he did so, the document would be honored.

Kung was unable to go and instead sent his roommate Taylor. The secretary made the copy of the document and gave it back to Taylor.

On the morning of Dec. 4, Kung said Kamerer, a maintenance man and the secretary came to his door.

According to Kung, Kamerer said Kung stole the document. Kamerer then gave Kung and his roommates an eviction notice and told them to stay at the apartment because she had called the police.

According to the police report, the document that Kung had was intended for another tenant who had difficulties moving into Burnham 310.

In Kung’s copy of the police report, at least Kung was charged with fraud and deception. Two other lines listed with Kung’s name had been redacted.

Hessee said those criminal charges had been dropped.

Kung said he and his roommates tried to pay the rent for December and January, but the Burnham attorney told the landlord not to accept it until the eviction notice went to court.

Hessee said this case was unusual because of the police involvement in the matter.

“It’s a very unusual step to take,” Hessee said.

Erik Allgood contributed to this report.