Court Opinion

ID: 9566383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:38:40.080857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:25.538811
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting:
I most respectfully dissent.
The deposit here in question was made in conjunction with an agreement denominated “application for residence hall housing.” The record in this case is clear and undisputed that the deposit was given “to secure the performance of a rental agreement for residential premises . . . .” As such, it falls squarely within the definition of security deposit as set forth in Sec. 38-12-102(2), C.R.S. 1973.
Nowhere does the Rental Security Deposit Act1 exempt from its provisions education institutions or non-profit corporations. The contract by which the deposit was made was for housing. Every incident of the normal landlord-tenant relationship is present here.
The Director of Housing for the college testified that at the end of the semester, any damages to the room would be deducted from that deposit.
In my view, when the state sets a policy for its citizens then the state itself should be the prime example of compliance with it. The state is not above the law. I do not say the college could not keep the deposit here, for the law certainly allows it for abandonment of the premises. But the state, like every other landlord, must follow the procedures of the law when it wishes to forfeit a security rental deposit.

 Sec. 38-12-102(2), C.R.S. 1973.