Skip to main content

Decisions and Orders > Security Deposit Cases: 2016 - 2020

 

This page contains summaries of Decisions and Orders, for Security Deposit cases, made by the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affiars (COLTA) between 2016 and 2020.  To view the summary, click on the Case Number in the table below.  To view the complete Decision and Order, click on the Case Number contained within the summary.

To see a complete list of all Decisions and Orders for all types of cases, please go the Decisions and Orders page.

Case # Case Name Date Order Issued Prevailing Party/Award
35592 Galen Andrew Scott and Sarah Lowing Scott vs. Benjamin and Kalena Costa December 5, 2016 Dismissed
35760 Pan Gu and Yimeng Wang vs. Sina and Nina Farzin September 21, 2016 Tenant $4,018.00
35363 Fatih and Asuman Oke vs. Tamineh Farhadyeh September 8, 2016 Tenant $836.90
35607 Ariel Veroske, Kristen Sween and Kate Rahbari v Renny and Gilbert Bowen July 20, 2016 Tenant $5,523.84
35567 Paul Eyong and Rosalie Munongo vs. Bhupinder Singh April 26, 2016 Tenant $3,149.03 
35447 Joan Gill Latouche vs. Seung Y. Doo April 7, 2016 Tenant $6,600.00
35319 Mo and Aryan Salehy vs. Judith Koenick March 11, 2016 Tenant $1,348.00
35310 Janet, Alan, Jeffrey and Corey Yu vs. Marcos Guzman March 10, 2016 Tenant $4,790.39

34837

Nick Anthony Sampson vs. Mithun Banerjee and

February 11, 2016 Tenant $2,828.00

 

Case Summaries​​

Galen Andrew Scott and Sarah Lowing Scott vs. Benjamin and Kalena Costa

Case # 35592
Date Order Issued December 5, 2016
Subject Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
Galen Andrew Scott and Sarah Lowing Scott (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlords, Benjamin Costa and Kalena Costa (“Respondents”), in which they alleged that the Respondents, without a reasonable basis, failed to return their full security deposit plus interest.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission to refund the full security deposit plus interest.

The Respondents asserted that the Complainants: failed to pay July’s rent; left the property for more than seven days without informing the Respondents; damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear; abandoned the Property; and left no forwarding address.

Findings
At the hearing, prior to presenting any evidence or testimony, the Complainants, with no objection from the Respondents, entered a motion for a voluntary dismissal on the grounds that they would accept a check from the Respondents of $3,366.13 as full relief if they could verify that the Respondents’ bank account contained sufficient funds to cover the check. The Commission granted the motion. After receiving verification that the check had cleared, the hearing record was closed.

The Order
In view of the foregoing, the Commission found that the Complainants had received relief from the Respondents in the amount of $3,366.13. Therefore, Case No. 35592 was DISMISSED with prejudice.


Pan Gu and Yimeng Wang vs. Sina and Nina Farzin

Case # 35760
Date Order Issued August 30, 2016
Subject Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
Pan Gu and Yimeng Wang (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlords Sina Farzin and Nina Farzin (“Respondents”), in which they alleged that the Respondents without any reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $8,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest $123.00, after they vacated the Property.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund their security deposit ($8,200.00), plus accrued interest ($123.00), minus the January 2016, rent ($4,400.00); for a total amount of $4,423.00; and, a penalty of up to three times the amount wrongly withheld.

The Respondents contended that the Complainants: moved-out of the Property owing the last month’s rent; damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; costs were incurred to repair the damages which justified the withholding of the Complainants’ security deposit plus interest; and an outstanding balance is still owed to the Respondents in the amount of $3,050.00.

Findings
The Commission found that: the Complainants signed a one-year lease with the Respondents, and their Agent, on December 28, 2014; the Complainants paid the Respondents a security deposit in the amount of $8,200.00 at the time they signed the Lease, December 29, 2014; the Complainants were provided an improper notice to vacate by January 6, 2016; the Complainants moved-out from the Property on January 28, 2016; the Complainants did not pay January 2016’s rent; the Respondents did send the Complainants, to their last known address, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainants’ security deposit, but failed to include a statement of the cost actually incurred; and, the Respondent failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with the correct amount of interest accrued on their $8,200.00.

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainants $4,018.00 which sum represented the Complainants’ security deposit ($8,200.00), plus accrued interest ($123.00); minus rent for January 2016 ($4,400.00); and, late fee for January 2016’s rent ($205.00).  The penalty requested by the Complainants was not granted.


Fatih and Asuman Oke vs. Tamineh Farhadyeh

Case # 35363
Date Order Issued September 8, 2016
Subject Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
Fatih and Asuman Oke (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlord Tamineh Farhadyeh (“Respondent”), in which they alleged that the Respondent without any reasonable basis failed to refund their full $3,050.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after they vacated the Property; and made unreasonable deductions from the security deposit in the amount of $1,657.34.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund any portion of the security deposit plus accrued interest that was unreasonably withheld.

The Respondent contended that the Complainants: damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and failed to pay the final water utility bill during their tenancy; and costs were incurred to repair the damages and pay the water utility bill, which justified the withholdings from the Complainants’ security deposit plus interest.

Findings
The Commission found that: the Complainants signed a five-year lease with the Respondent, on September 11, 2014; the Complainants paid the Respondent a security deposit in the amount of $3,050.00 at the time they signed the Lease; the Complainants and the Respondent mutually agreed to terminate the tenancy, effective June 30, 2015, prior the the scheduled lease expiration, and the Complainants vacated effective June 30, 2015, paying rent in full through that date; the tenancy terminated effective June 30, 2015;  the Respondent did send the Complainants, to their last known address, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainants’ security deposit, and made a partial refund of the security deposit in the amount of $1,342.66; the Respondent is justified in withholding from the security deposit plus accrued interest, the Complainant’s final water utility bill in the amount of $72.34, and charges for damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear including repair/paint walls in the amount of $650.00, gutter cleaning in the amount of $65.00, and cleaning in the amount of $140.00; the Respondent failed to establish that the Complainant caused any other damages to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear or substantiate any actual costs incurred for damages caused by the Complainant in excess of ordinary wear and tear; the Respondent failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with the correct amount of interest accrued on their security deposit in the amount of $56.90.

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $836.90 which sum represented the Complainants’ security deposit ($3,050.00), plus accrued interest ($56.90), less withholdings for damges, cleaning and unpaid water utility bill ($72.34) and the amount already refunded ($1,342.66).


Ariel Veroske, Kristen Sween and Kate Rahbari vs. Renny and Gilbert Bowen

Case # 35607
Date Order Issued July 20, 2016
Subject Security Deposit 

Summary of Complaint
Ariel Veroske, Kristen Sween and Kate Rahbari (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlords Renny and Gilbert Bowen (“Respondents”), in which they alleged that the Respondents failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within forty-five days after their termination of tenancy; and failed to return any portion of the security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund their security deposit ($1,850.00), and a penalty of up to three times any amount wrongly withheld. 

The Respondents provided no response to the complaint.

Findings
The Commission found that: the Complainants signed a one-year lease with the Respondent Renny Bowen, on September 1, 2014; the Complainants paid the Respondent a security deposit in the amount of $1,850.00 at the time they signed the Lease; the Respondents failed to provide the Complainants with the security deposit disclosures required by law; the Complainants gave the Respondents proper notice of their intentionto vacate the Property effective August 31, 2015, and vacated, paying rent in full through that date; (5) the Respondent did not send the Complainants, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainant’s security deposit; and the Respondents failed to provide any documentation to the Complainants, the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs or the Commission that they incurred any actual costs as a result of the Complainants' tenancy. 

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainants $5,523.84, which sum represented the Complainant’s security deposit plus accrued interest; and, treble damages as a penalty.


​​Paul Eyong and Rosalie Munongo vs. Bhupinder Singh

Case # 35567
Date Order Issued April 12, 2016
Subject Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
Paul Eyong and Rosalie Munongo (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlord Bhupinder Singh (“Respondent”), in which they alleged that the Respondent without any reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $1,735.00 security deposit plus accrued interest $364.35 after they vacated the Property.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund their security deposit ($1,735.00), plus accrued interest ($364.35), for a total amount of $2,099.35; and a penalty of up to three times the amount wrongly withheld.

The Respondent contended that the Complainants: (1) moved-out of the Property owing rent; (2) damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (3) costs were incurred to repair the damages which justified the withholding of the Complainants’ security deposit plus interest; and, (4) an outstanding balance is still owed to the Respondent due to damages and unpaid rent in the amount of $4,245.00.

Findings
The Commission found that: (1) the Complainants signed a one-year lease with the Respondent, on April 10, 2008; (2) the Complainants paid the Respondent a security deposit in the amount of $1,735.00 at the time she signed the Lease, April 10, 2008; (3) the Lease signed by the parties does not contain any of the disclosures required by Section 8-203, “Security Deposits”, or Section 8-203-1 “Security Deposit Receipt”, of the Real Property Article; (4) the Respondent did not send the Complainants, to their last known address, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainants’ security deposit; and, (5) the Respondent failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with the correct amount of interest accrued on their $1,735.00.

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $3,149.03 which sum represented the Complainants’ security deposit ($1,745.00), plus accrued interest ($364.35); and a penalty of $1,049.68.


​​Joan Gill Latouche vs. Seung Y. Doo

Case # 35447
Date Order Issued March 15, 2016
Subject Security Deposit 

Summary of Complaint
Joan Gill Latouche (“Complainant”) filed a complaint against her former landlord Seung Y. Doo (“Respondent”), in which she alleged that the Respondent without any reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of her $2,200.00 security deposit after the early termination of her tenancy. 

The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund her security deposit ($2,200.00), and a penalty of up to three times the amount wrongly withheld. 

The Respondent’s Agent contended that the Complainant: damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her short tenancy; and costs were incurred to repair the damages which justified the withholding of the Complainant’s security deposit. 

Findings
The Commission found that: the Complainant signed a two-year lease with the Respondent ‘s Agent, on April 11, 2015; the Complainant paid the Respondent’s Agent a security deposit in the amount of $2,200.00 at the time she signed the Lease, April 11, 2015; the Respondent’s Agent requested the Complainant to move-out in 30 days, by June 11, 2015, due to late payment of her rent; the Complainant move-out from the Property on July 31, 2015; the Respondent did not send the Complainant, to her last known address, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainant’s security deposit. 

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $6,600.00 which sum represented the Complainant’s security deposit ($2,200.00); and, treble damages as a penalty.


Mo Salehy and Aryan Salehy vs. Judith Koenick

Case # 35319
Date Order Issued  March 11, 2016
Subject  Security Deposit 

Summary of Complaint 
Mo and Aryan Salehy (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlord, Judith Koenick (“Respondent”), in which they alleged that the Respondent, without a reasonable basis, failed to return their full security deposit plus interest and made unreasonable deductions from their security deposit plus accrued interest. 

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission to refund the withheld portion of their $3000.00 security deposit plus interest.

The Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

Findings
The Commission found that the Complainants paid the Respondent a security deposit in the amount of $3,000.00, which accrued interest in the amount of $135.00 during their tenancy; the Complainants’ tenancy terminated effective April 30, 2015; the Respondent made a partial return of the security deposit plus accrued interest in the amount of $1,787.00; the Respondent provided no probative evidence to indicate the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of the Complainants’ tenancy; the Respondent provided no probative evidence to indicate she incurred any actual costs to repair any damages as a result of the Complainants’ tenancy; and the Respondent provided no probative evidence to indicate the itemized list of damages was sent to the Complainants within forty-five (45) days after their termination of tenancy (by June 14, 2015).

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $1,348.00, which sum represents the Complainants’ security deposit ($3,000.00), plus accrued interest ($135.00), less the refund already received by the Complainants ($1,787.00).


Janet, Alan, Jeffrey and Corey Yu vs. Marcos Guzman

Case # 35310
Date Order Issued March 10, 2016
Subject Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
Janet, Alan, Correy and Jeffrey Yu (“Complainants”) filed a complaint against their former landlord Marcos Guzman (“Respondent”), in which they alleged that the Respondent failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred by regular mail to their last known address within forty-five days after their termination of tenancy; failed to return their full $8,400.00 security deposit, plus accrued interest within forty-five days after the termination of their tenancy; failed to pay interest on the security deposit; and without any reasonable basis, made unreasonable deductions from the security deposit in the amount of $5002.15.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund any portion of the security deposit plus accrued interest that was unreasonably withheld, plus a penalty of up to three-fold any amount unreasonably withheld.

The Respondent contended that the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear, failed to pay the final water utility bill, and failed to pay all rent due through their termination of tenancy; and costs were incurred to repair the damages and pay the water utility bill, and for lost rent, which justified the withholdings from the Complainants’ security deposit plus interest.

Findings
​The Commission found that: the Complainants signed a one-year lease with the Respondent, on January 11, 2011; the Complainants paid the Respondent a security deposit in the amount of $8,400.00 at the time they signed the Lease; the Complainants vacated the Property effective May 8, 2015, paying rent through April 30, 2015; On June 23, 2015 (46 days after May 8, 2015), the Respondent sent the Complainants an itemized list of damages being claimed against the Complainants’ security deposit, including an assessment for rental responsibility through May 8, 2015, and made a partial refund of the security deposit in the amount of $3,397.85; the Complainants' tenancy terminated effective May 8, 2015; interest accrued on the Complainant's security deposit in the amount of $1,048.39; the Complainants agreed to accept responsibility for the final water utility bill and rent through the termination of tenancy; based on the Complainants agreement at the hearing to accept responsibility for the water utility bill and May rent through the termination of tenancy, the Respondent's withholding from the security deposit for final water utility bill in the amount of $124.67, and rent from May 1, 2015 through May 8, 2015, in the amount of $1,135.48 is allowed; the Respondent failed to send the Complainants an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs actually incurred, within forty-five days of the termination of tenancy; the Respondent failed to account for the interest accrued on the security deposit in the amount of $56.90.

The Order
The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $4,790.39, which sum represented the Complainants’ security deposit ($8,400.00), plus accrued interest ($1,048.39), less withholdings for unpaid water utility bill ($124.67) and eight days May 2015 rent (1,135.48) and the amount already refunded ($3,397.85).


Nick Anthony Sampson vs. Mithun Banerjee

Case # 34837  - Nick Anthony Sampson vs. Mithun Banerjee 
 

Go Top