Court Opinion

ID: 9713954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:27:24.015835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:22.253577
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting and concurring.
I respectfully dissent insofar as the majority finds that Pinnacle’s partially inadequate notice entitles the tenants to return of their entire security deposit. As set out in the majority opinion, the security deposit statute requires: “an itemized list of damages claimed ... including the estimated cost of repair for each damaged item.” IND.CODE § 32-7-5-14 (1993 Ed.).
IND.CODE § 32-7-5-15 (1993 Ed.) provides:
Failure by the landlord to comply with the notice of damages requirement within the forty-five (45) days after the termination of occupancy constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.
The majority and the trial court determined that, unless the notice is in compliance in toto and the difference between the amount claimed and the amount held is tendered, the statute requires the landlord to remit the total security deposit, even those portions for which the notice was adequate. I disagree. The above statute appears to contemplate return of the full security deposit when the entire notice fails, e.g. untimely notice, no itemization, or no estimated costs. I believe the statute is inapposite when only a portion of the notice fails. Then, the inadequate portion constitutes agreement that no damages are due, and the amount attributable to the inadequate notice portion must be remitted in full.
In Rueth v. Quinn, 659 N.E.2d 684, 688-690 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this Court addressed the propriety of a judgment in favor of the tenants for return of their entire security deposit, when the landlord erroneously claimed inflated damages for two of the three itemized losses listed in the notice. It was determined that the notice was not in compliance with the statutes; however, the landlord was entitled to deduct from the security deposit the proper amounts proven at trial. Id. at 689-690.
I do not believe that the security deposit statute is an all or nothing proposition. Without doubt, the statutes intend to curb abuses and require a minimum level of specificity. Thus, withholding the security deposit based upon a general claim of damages to the premises does not fulfill the purpose of the *107statutes. See Duchon v. Ross, 599 N.E.2d 621, 624 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). However, where the landlord timely sends an itemized statement with estimated costs of repairs, the failure of some of the items for specificity does not cast out all claims by the landlord. The notice requirement is intended to allow tenants adequate information to contest the withheld amount. See Meyers v. Langley, 638 N.E.2d 875, 878-879 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). Landlords are required to assess the damages, obtain estimates for repairs, and tender any excess security deposit within the prescribed period.
The majority opinion compels landlords to limit the itemized amounts to those which cannot be refuted at trial, because once a tenant objects and a court determines that an amount is not reasonable, or erroneously withheld, the landlord forfeits even the substantiated charges. Certainly, the statutes discourage overreaching and unscrupulous retention of security deposits. They do not, however, compel landlords to unrefutably itemize damages in a legal roll of the dice where they may lose all by a misstep.
In particular, in this case, the trial court determined that $545 of the $558 charge for cleaning and clearing trash was substantiated by receipts. The trial court did not find that amount invalid for any other reason. The $545 charge should be deducted from the $2,500 security deposit retained.
Essentially, the court determined that the other charges in the vacate report were not proven or not available. This Court may not reweigh evidence on appeal. Be that as it may, had the landlord presented sufficient evidence as to “carpet cleaning” and “painting,” I believe that those categories are sufficiently explicit to meet the itemization requirement within the security deposit statute. I agree that the “other damages” and “unpaid rent” entries are facially inadequate. Those entries did not place the tenants on notice as to the damage claimed or any relationship between the estimated cost and the asserted loss.
In summary, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the security deposit statute does not contemplate partial compliance; thus, any impropriety in a timely notice is fatal to the landlord’s claims and the entire security deposit must be returned. Partial compliance is satisfactory for those amounts adequately presented. In keeping with the purpose of the statutes and acting as a deterrent to those who would withhold amounts without proper investigation or documentation, the failure of any amounts improperly withheld subjects the landlord to payment of the tenant’s costs and attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, I would reduce the judgment by the amount of the cleaning charge for which the trial court found adequate substantiation. The costs and attorney’s fees incurred to obtain the balance of the unproven and improper charges does not hinge upon the reduction and would remain the same.