Case One
Tenancy Ends When Landlord Changes Locks and Removes Remaining Tenant Possessions; Tenants Sue for Security Deposit.
The Marinos leased a home from Hartfield. When they moved in, they paid Hartfield a $675 security deposit.
One year later, on Aug. 1, the Marinos notified Hartfield they were moving out as of Aug. 31. On Aug. 31, Hartfield inspected the property with the Marinos. At the same time, the Marinos agreed to remove their remaining furniture, mow the lawn and return the keys later that day.
On Sept. 2, Hartfield saw the lawn had been mowed, but the Marinos had not removed their furniture or returned their keys. That same day Mrs. Marino went to the house, removed some checkbooks from the kitchen and left, still without removing the furniture or returning the keys.
On Sept. 4, Hartfield hired a locksmith to change the locks and had the Marinos’ remaining items removed. The Marinos did not call Hartfield about returning the keys until the second week in September.
Hartfield spent more than the $675 security deposit repairing the damage the Marinos and their children had done. On Oct. 4, Hartfield sent the Marinos an itemized statement of the damage and deductions from the security deposit. The Marinos then demanded that Hartfield return the entire security deposit to them.
Hartfield refused, and the Marinos sued. Hartfield sued the Marinos, as well, for property damage, presumably including the damage in excess of the security deposit.
The court awarded Hartfield damages and attorney fees. The Marinos appealed, the appeals court affirmed the judgment. The Marinos appealed again, this time to the state Supreme Court. (That’s a lot of money to spend to get $675 back.)
The court sent the case back to the appeals court for further explanation of its earlier decision and for consideration of the Marinos’ arguments.
The final decision was in favor of the landlord.
The trial court had enough evidence to find for Hartfield. The parties’ lease said the Marinos had to reimburse Hartfield for any damages over and above the amount of the security deposit. There were documents and testimony to prove Hartfield’s damages.
Hartfield provided a damage itemization within 30 days of the end of the tenancy. The Marinos said they gave up possession of the property on Aug. 31, so Hartfield had to give them an itemization by Sept. 30. However, the Marinos remained in possession until Sept. 4, when Hartfield changed the locks. They continued to enter the property after Aug. 31, they left personal items there until Hartfield removed them, and they did not return the keys. The Oct. 4 itemization was proper.
Marino v. Hartfield, 877 S.W.2d 508 (Texas) 1994.
Case Two
Landlord Challenges Order to Return Security Deposit to Evicted Tenant
Tenant Did Not Damage Apartment
In April 1992, Hatfield signed a lease to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Marshall’s apartment building. Hatfield paid a $345 security deposit.
One month after moving in, contrary to the terms of the lease, Hatfield began paying rent in partial payments,. In addition tenants in neighboring apartments complained that Hatfield’s children were noisy.
Marshall sued to evict Hatfield. The court ordered Hatfield to move out by June 30 and to pay Marshall all back rent and late fees.
Later, the court held a hearing to determine damages. Marshall reported Hatfield had complied with the court’s order by moving out before the end of June, and Marshall did not request any damages for the apartment’s condition. However, Marshall wanted Hatfield to pay July rent because this amount was still due under the lease. Marshall also wanted about $100 in damages for advertising to re-rent the apartment and for utilities while the apartment was vacant.
The court gave the landlord the judgment for $100, and ordered him to deduct that amount from Hatfield’s security deposit, while returning the balance to Hatfield. The court denied Marshall’s claim for July rent. Marshall appealed.
The decision was affirmed.
Marshall was not entitled to July rent. The lease stated that its term was from April 11, 1992 to April 30, 1992, so the tenancy was month-to-month, not year-to-year. Therefore, Hatfield was not responsible for rent after June 30. Even if the lease extended beyond June 30, Hatfield did not have to pay further rent, because she had been evicted, and the lease did not state that she would still be responsible for rent in the event of an eviction.
Even though Hatfield did not specifically request the return of her security deposit, the trial court was correct to order its return. Marshall admitted there were no damages due for the apartment’s condition, so he had to return the deposit immediately.
Marshall v. Hatfield, 631 N.E.2d 490 (Indiana) 1994.
What can landlords learn from these two cases?
In the first case the landlord prevailed because of good records. Therefore,
- Keep all documents that create your tenant’s duty to reimburse you for property damage.
- Take photographs of all damages and save your repair receipts for use as evidence in court.
- Complete all repairs quickly, so you can make any security deposit deductions and notify tenants before the law requires you to return the deposit.
In the second case, the landlord was only partially successful because of some errors on his part.
Therefore,
- Be sure that your leases accurately reflect the expectations and intentions of both parties.
- Don’t overlook important details because you failed to proof-read a lease or rental agreement. Dates are obviously the first thing to check.