Court Opinion

ID: 9527741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:33:37.450169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:10.377995
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I agree that the lease agreement was terminated on February 20, 2007, and that Klotz provided an itemized list of damages within forty-five days of this termination. However, I am concerned that allowing a landlord to provide this notice on the day of a hearing contravenes the purpose of the notice requirement, which is “to inform the tenant that the landlord is keeping the security and for what reason, as well as to allow that tenant an opportunity to challenge the costs for which the deposit is being used.” Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101, 104 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. Such a tactic also raises due process concerns, as the tenants were not aware of the specific damages Klotz was claiming until the day of the hearing. See FTC v. Nat’l Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 427, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438 (1957) (“It goes without saying that the requirements of a fair hearing include notice of the claims of the opposing party and an opportunity to meet them.”); Sec. Comm’n of Ind. v. Holovachka, 234 Ind. 135, 137, 124 N.E.2d 380, 381 (1955) (“The right to a hearing includes the right to know and meet the charges.”). As *1239Klotz had not complied with the statute until the day of the hearing, the tenants would have correctly believed that they had a statutory defense under Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 until the day of the hearing.3 Still, I agree with the majority’s reasoning that we are not at liberty to rewrite statutes, and therefore concur in the result reached.
However, I am unable to agree with the majority’s holding that a landlord’s failure to comply with the notice requirement does not preclude a landlord from recovering damages for back rent. Respectfully, I believe that such a holding is contrary to statutory and case law.
Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 indicates that “[f]ailure by a landlord to provide notice of damages under section 14 of this chapter constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” See also Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.”) (quoting Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). “The notice requirement must be met before'the Landlord can recover not only those damages recoverable under Ind.Code § 32-31-3-13 regarding the use of the security deposit, to cover actual damages, rent ar-rearages, or utility or sewer charges, but also the ‘other damages’ referred to in Ind.Code § 32-31-3-12(c).” Id. Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments.4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must comply with the statutory notice requirement in order to preserve its right to recover the other damages to which it is entitled,” and holding that where a landlord fails to comply with the notice requirements, it is “foreclosed from recovering unpaid rent”); Durf, 839 N.E.2d at 1211 (“If the required notice is not given, the landlord has implicitly agreed that there are no other damages to collect.”); Hill v. Davis, 832 N.E.2d 544, 554-55 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding landlord’s failure to comply with notice requirement precluded recovery of unpaid rent and utility bills); Deckard Realty & Dev. v. Lykins, 688 N.E.2d 1319, 1321 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (holding that where a landlord fails to comply with the notice requirement, “the landlord is prohibited from making a claim for any ‘other damages’ and must return the entire security deposit to the tenant”), trans. denied; Duchon v. Ross, 599 N.E.2d 621, 625 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (“A landlord can attempt to pursue a claim for ‘other damages’ only if it returns the tenant’s security deposit within 45 days or provides the statutory notice.”); Skiver v. Brighton Meadows, 585 N.E.2d 1345, 1347 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that because the landlord “did not provide [the tenant] with a list of damages claimed *1240under section 13, in this case the unpaid rent, [the landlord] may not now collect this amount” (emphasis added)).

. There is no indication in the record that the tenants requested a continuance.

. The tenant and landlord are prohibited from contracting out of the requirements of the security deposit statute. See Ind.Code § 32-7-5-17; Raider v. Pea, 613 N.E.2d 870, 873 (Ind.Ct.App.1993).