County Executive
County Council
Judiciary
Departments
I Want To ...
Services & Info.
Online Services
County Cable 6
SeniorsEducation
Libraries
Volunteer
Careers
Contact Us
 Department of Housing and Community Affairs | |
| Welcome | Housing | MPDU | Workforce | Code Enforcement | Landlord & Tenant | Community Programs
Reports | Resource Center | Complaints | Licensing | Committees, Commissions and Boards | Espanől | Contact Us | |
|
Office of
Landlord-Tenant Affairs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page contains summaries of Decisions and Orders for Security Deposit cases. To view the summary, click on the Case Number. To view the complete Decision and Order, click on the Case Number contained in the summary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Case Summaries Case #:
28511, Ortiz-Molina and Sillimon v. 1601 Dale Drive LLC,
Mitchell Herman The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their entire $4,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest and a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount. The Landlord contended that the Tenants: (1) failed to pay the last months rent; (2) damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; and (3) the amount of the unpaid rent and costs he incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Tenants security deposit plus interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenants failed to pay the Landlord the last months rent, in the amount of amount of $2,100.00, and a late fee in the amount of $105.00; (2) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the Landlord incurred actual expense to repair that damage in the amount of $2,121.00; (3) many of the costs assessed against the Complainants security deposit by the Landlord were unreasonable and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (e)(4) of the State Code; and (4) the Landlords unreasonable withholding did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty. The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) although the Landlord attempted to withhold from the Tenants security deposit costs it incurred to repair damages that were either pre-existing, not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, or not the Complainants responsibility to repair, which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203, Security deposits, of the State Code, based on the amount of the Complainants security deposit ($4,200.00) plus the correct amount of accrued interest ($126.00), less unpaid rent and late fee ($2,205.00) and damages rightfully withheld ($2,121.00), the Landlord was within its right to withhold the entire amount of the Tenants security deposit plus accrued interest; and, (2) the Tenants are not entitled to a refund of any portion of their security deposit plus accrued interest, and their request for a refund plus a penalty, was denied. Case #:
29397, Paz v. Wotorson The Tenant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund her entire $1,700.00 security deposit plus $102.00 accrued interest. The Landlord contended that the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy and the costs she incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of the Tenants security deposit plus interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenant paid the Landlord a security deposit in the amount of $1,700.00 at the commencement of the tenancy; (2) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenant an itemized list of damages being claimed against the security deposit within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord had forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and (3) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants security deposit with 2 year simple interest, which sum is $102.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code. The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,802.00, which sum represented her entire security deposit ($1,700.00), plus accrued interest ($102.00). The Landlord subsequently failed to comply with the Commissions Order and failed to file an appeal to the Circuit Court. Enforcement action against the Landlord, Evangeline Wotorson, is pending. Case #:
29031, Harkavey v. Nejaddehgan The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their $5,200.00 security deposit plus $494.00 accrued interest, plus a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount. The Landlord contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the costs he incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest; and (2) he sent to the Complainants, to their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages claimed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy, and the Landlord incurred actual expense, only in the amount of $450.00 to repair that damage; (2) the Landlord did send to the Tenants an itemized list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, as required by Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (3) the Landlord assessed against the Tenants security deposit the cost to repair damages that were either pre-existing, not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, not the Tenants responsibility to repair, or for which no cost was actually incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with simple interest which had accrued on their security deposit, which sum is $494.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; and (5) although the Commission found that the Landlord failed to handle and dispose of the Tenants security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the State security deposit law, it concluded that his conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty. The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) the Landlord must pay the Tenants $5,244.00, which sum represented their security deposit ($5,200.00), plus accrued interest ($494.00), less the amount properly withheld for damages ($450.00; (2) the Tenants request for a penalty was denied; and (3) the Landlord apprise himself of the law and conform his business practices accordingly. The Landlord subsequently complied with the Order and paid the Tenants the sum of $5,244.00. Case #:
28766, Lester v. Marshall The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their entire $1,975.00 security deposit plus $237.00 accrued interest, plus a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount. The Landlord contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the costs he incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest; and (2) he sent to the Complainants, to their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages claimed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenants an itemized list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages; (2) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with the correct amount of simple interest which had accrued on their security deposit, in the correct amount of $237.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; and (3) although the Commission found that the Landlord failed to handle and dispose of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the State security deposit law, it concluded that his conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty. The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) the Landlord must refund the Tenants $1,975.00 security deposit plus $237.00 accrued interest; (2) the Tenants request for a penalty was denied; and (3) the Landlord should apprise himself of the law and conform his business practices accordingly. The Landlord subsequently appealed the Commissions Decision and Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. This appeal is currently pending. Case #:
28888, Castelo v. Morgan-Bailey The Landlord contended that: (1) she sent the required itemized list of damages to the Complainants at their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (2) the Complainants vacated owing unpaid rent; (3) the Complainants failed to pay her for furniture they purchased, in the amount of $500.00; and (4) the amount owed to her by the Complainants exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest. The Tenants requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their $1,000.00 security deposit plus $60.00 interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenants a list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges, which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages; (2) the failure by the Complainants to purchase or pay for items of furniture being sold by the Landlord, if such an agreement existed, does not constitute a breach of the Lease on the part of the Complainants or damage to the Property by the Complainants in excess of ordinary wear and tear, as defined in Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i) of the State Code; (3) the assessment of $425.00 claimed against the Complainants security deposit for an alleged failure to purchase or pay for furniture is disallowed; and (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with 6% simple interest ($60.00) which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code. The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to refund the Tenants $1,000.00 security deposit and $60.00 accrued interest. The Landlord subsequently paid the Tenants $1,060.00. Case #:
28542 Facello and Gonzales v. Greenfeld The Landlord contended that: (1) it was not possible to remove the stain from the carpet and although she never replaced it, its value was reduced by $100.00, and (2) when she had the rental unit re-painted after the Tenants moved out, her painter had to apply an extra coat of paint to the areas that the Tenants re-painted with a deep orange/yellow color. The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission that the Landlord pay them $361.51, which sum represented the $350.00 withheld from their security deposit plus $11.51 additional interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord did not incur any actual expense to repair or replace alleged carpet damage and therefore, her assessment of $100.00 against the Tenants security deposit was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (2) the Tenants did not cause damage to the interior walls of the unit in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and therefore, the Landlords assessment of $250.00 against the Tenants security deposit for additional painting was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i) of the State Code; (3) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants security deposit with the correct amount of accrued interest, in violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code. The Commission further found that the Tenants complied with the requirements of § 8-203(f)(1)(ii) and (iii) of the State Code regarding their request to be present for a final walkthrough inspection of the unit by notifying the Landlord by certified mail at least 15 days prior to the date they were moving of their intention to move, the date of moving, and their new address. However, the Landlord, who signed for and accepted delivery of the Tenants inspection request, failed to notify them by certified mail of the time and date when the Condominium was to be inspected within 5 days before or 5 days after the date of moving as designated in their notice, as required by Section 8-203 (f)(1)(iv) and (v) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203 (f)(1)(vii) of the State Code, the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold any part of the Tenants security deposit for damages. The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $361.51, which sum represented the amount withheld from their security deposit ($350.00), plus additional accrued interest ($11.51). The Landlord subsequently complied and paid the Tenants $361.51. Case #:
28378, Johns v. Danesh The Landlord contended that: (1) he had properly issued the Complainant an itemized list of damages within 45-days of the termination of her tenancy; and (2) the security deposit plus accrued interest and rent credit were properly withheld due to damage the Complainant caused to the Property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear and an unpaid utility bill. The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire $1,395.00 security deposit and accrued interest in the amount of $20.93, plus a rent credit in the amount of $194.45. In addition, the Complainant was seeking a penalty of up to threefold the unreasonably withheld amount of her security deposit plus accrued interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to comply with the requirements of Section 8-203.1 of the State Code by providing the Tenant with a receipt for her payment of security deposit that advised her: (A) of her right to have the Property inspected for the purpose of making a written list of damages at the commencement of tenancy; (B) her right to be present when the Landlord inspected the Property at the end of the tenancy in order to determine if damage was done; and (C) that failure by the Landlord to comply with the requirements of § 8-203.1 could result in the Respondent being liable for a penalty of up to 3 times the amount of the security deposit withheld plus reasonable attorneys fees; (2) based on his failure to comply with Section 8-203.1 of the State Code, the Landlord had forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the Tenants security deposit for damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, or damage which was the result of a breach of the Lease; (3) the Landlord failed to substantiate that he incurred actual costs for many of the damages claimed against the Complainants security deposit, and the assessment of $1,842.77 against the security deposit to repair damage which was not established to be as a result of damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear or for which costs were not actually incurred, was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i), (f)(2), and (g)(1) of the State Code. The Tenants request for a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount of her security deposit was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,610.38, which sum represented her security deposit ($1,395.00) plus accrued interest ($20.93), plus a rent credit ($194.45). The Landlord subsequently filed an appeal of the Commissions Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and filed suit against the Tenant in the District Court of Maryland for the same damages he claimed against her security deposit. The Landlord subsequently withdrew his appeal of the Commissions Order in the Circuit Court, and the District Court subsequently dismissed his suit against the Complainant for damages based on the fact that the Commission had already fully adjudicated the matter. Case #:
28618, Johnson v. Bestman-Johnson The Landlord, who failed to appear at the hearing, contended that the Tenant breached the lease agreement by failing to take possession and therefore, she was entitled to retain the Tenants security deposit for unpaid rent. The Tenant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her security deposit plus a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount. Findings:
The Commission found that the Landlord: (1) failed to disclose to the Tenant in
the lease the proper information regarding security deposits, as required by
Section 8-203 of the State Code, and as a result, pursuant to Section
8-203(f)(vii) of the State Code, the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold
any part of the Tenants security deposit for damages; (2) the Landlord had a
duty to mitigate the damage Although the Commission concluded that the Landlords withholding of the Tenants security deposit was unreasonable, it further concluded that the Landlords actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Tenants request for a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to refund the Tenants $1,500.00 security deposit, and the Landlord subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Tenant $1,500.00.Case #:
27977, Adedoyin Onimole and Ayorinde Akinrinlola v. Therese Reese The Respondent failed to respond to the complaint or provide any explanation regarding why the Complainants security deposit was not refunded, and, although properly served with a Summons and Statement of Charges, failed to appear at the public hearing in this matter. The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund their entire $1,250.00 security deposit, plus a penalty of up to three times that amount based on the Respondents unreasonable withholding. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) The Respondent failed to obtain a Rental Facility License from the Department prior to offering the Condominium for rent to the Complainants, as required by the County Code; (2) twenty-one (21) days prior to the commencement date of the Lease, the Complainants informed the Respondent that due to financial difficulties they were unable to proceed with the Lease, and they never took possession of the Condominium; (3) the Respondent failed to properly mitigate the damages created by the Complainants breach of lease and failure to take possession at the commencement of the lease term, because at no time was the Condominium offered for rent by the Respondent after the Complainants notified her of their decision not to take possession; (4) the Respondent had an obligation to attempt to re-rent the Condominium, but failed to do so, and sold it instead; (5) the Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants $1,250.00 security deposit; and (6) Although the Commission concluded that the Respondents withholding of the Complainants security deposit was unreasonable, it found that her actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Complainants request for a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants $1,250.00, which sum represented their security deposit, and since the Complainants did not live at the Condominium for at least 6 months, no interest was due. Case #:
27633, Brian Watson v. Yezid and Christine Valencia The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy; (2) the actual costs they incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest; and (3) they sent to the Complainant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy. The Complainant is seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund his security deposit ($2,000.00), plus accrued interest ($60.00), and a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount based on the Respondents unreasonable withholding. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant failed to properly request to be present for a final walkthrough inspection of the Property; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy; (3) the Respondents incurred actual expense to repair that damage in an amount that exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest; (4) the Respondents sent the itemized list of damages, together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair that damage, to the Complainant within 45 days after the termination of the Complainants tenancy; and (5) the Respondents properly handled and disposed of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the State Code. The Order: The Commission ordered the complainant, Case No. 27633, be DISMISSED. Case #:
27529, Kay Kramer v. Eileen and Roland Martin The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the rental Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; (2) the repairs were not completed within 45 days after the termination of the Complainants tenancy, however the repairs were made in conjunction with preparing the house for post-tenancy re-sale. The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund the remainder of her security deposit, in the amount of $1,050.00, plus $348.75 accrued interest. At hearing, the Complainant amended her complaint to request, in addition to the refund of her entire security deposit plus accrued interest, a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Respondents failed to credit the Complainant with the correct amount of security deposit she paid at the commencement of her tenancy, which sum is $1,550.00 ($1,050.00 plus the pet deposit of $500.00); (2) the Complainant did not damage the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy and did not owe any rent to the Respondents; (3) the Respondents failed to pay to the Complainant the interest which had accrued on her security deposit which sum was $348.75; and (4) although the Respondents had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages, their actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Complainants request for a penalty was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay Complainant $1,398.75 which sum represented the Complainants Security Deposit ($1,550.00) plus accrued interest ($348.75), less the amount previously refunded by the Respondents ($500.00). The Respondents subsequently complied with the Commissions Order and paid the Complainant the sum of $1,398.75. Case #:
27624, Bora Mpinja v. Eugene Nyambal The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainant verbally agreed to a one-year lease agreement, and breached that lease by vacating after only 5 months; (2) assuming Complainant is held to have been a month-to-month rather than a leasehold tenant, the Complainant failed to issue him a timely one month notice of her intention to vacate, which did not leave him sufficient time to find a replacement tenant quickly; (3) he did speak with his agent, the Complainants roommate, about problems with the Complainant, but felt those were only minor; and (4) he retained the Complainant's security deposit to cover unpaid rent. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent to refund her $600.00 security deposit. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant and the Respondent had an oral month-to-month lease for the rental of the Condominium; (2) the security deposit receipt provided by the Respondent did not contain any of the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (3) the Complainant notified the Respondent of problems she was having with her roommate, the Respondents agent, but his response to the situation was insufficient; (4) although the Complainant was a month-to-month tenant, she was justified in vacating the Condominium when she did, thereby terminating her tenancy, even without a notice to vacate because her roommate, acting as the Respondents agent, interfered with her peaceful enjoyment of the Condominium Unit, resulting in a constructive eviction.; (5) the Complainant owed no additional rent to the Respondent. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to: (1) pay Complainant $600.00, which sum represented her security deposit; and since the Complainant did not live at the Condominium for at least 6 months, no interest was due. Case #:
25872, Nylander v. Gunter The Respondent contended that the Complainant: (1) abandoned the Property without notice and therefore, she was entitled to take possession and retain his rental payment; (2) damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of his tenancy, and she incurred actual expense, in the amount of $2,860.00 to repair that damage; (3) failed to pay the final water bill in the amount of $45.28; (4) she offered to refund a portion of the last months rent, but the Complainant refused. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent: (1) refund his last months rent in the amount of $4,300.00; (2) refund his entire $4,400.00 security deposit; and (3) pay a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount, plus reasonable attorneys fees. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant paid April rent in full to the Respondent and vacated the Property on April 3rd and voluntarily surrendered possession to the Respondent on that date; (2) the Respondent re-rented the on April 21st which terminated the Complainants tenancy and obligation to pay rent; (3) the Complainant caused minor damage to the Property during his tenancy that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear, however, most of the damages claimed by the Respondent were deficiencies that were either present at the commencement of the Complainants tenancy, normal wear and tear, or painting that had not been done prior to the Complainants tenancy; (4) the Complainant would have repaired the minor damage had he not been denied access to the Property by the Respondent; (5) the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with a statement of the actual cost incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy, and as a result, she forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages; (6) the Complainant failed to pay the final water bill for the Property, and therefore, the Respondent was within her right to withhold that amount from the Complainants security deposit; and (7) the Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit, with the exception of the unpaid final water bill, and her withholding was unreasonable and in bad faith, which warranted the award of a penalty. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $6,512.74, which sum represented the Complainants security deposit ($4,400.00), plus a refund of rent for the period April 19-30 ($1,719.96), and a penalty of $500.00, less the amount of the final water bill ($107.22). The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $6,512.74. Case #:
26722, John and Kathleen Griffin v. Carolyn Lee Glusing The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their security deposit ($1,425.00) plus accrued interest ($277.88), less the July, 2005 rent ($1,175.00), for an award of $527.88, plus a penalty of up to three times that amount. The Respondent failed to respond to the complaint and, although personally served with a Summons and Statement of Charges, failed to appear at the public hearing or send an attorney to represent her. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) Complainants failed to pay their last months, in the amount of $1,175.00, to the Respondent as required by the Lease, and therefore, the Respondent was within her right to withhold that amount from the Complainants security deposit; (2) Complainants did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (3) Respondent failed to send to the Complainants an itemized list of damages being assessed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair such damage, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and therefore, Respondent forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants' security deposit for damages; (4) Respondent failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with accrued simple interest in the amount of $277.88; and (5) Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages other than unpaid rent for July 2005. The Commission further found that the Respondents failure to refund the balance of the Complainants security deposit after advising Complainants she would do so, and by refusing to offer any explanation at any time for withholding the balance of the deposit, evidenced bad faith with respect to withholding the balance of the security deposit and complete disregard for law, and warranted an award of a penalty of three times the withheld amount of $527.88, which sum is $1,583.64. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants Respondent pay the Complainants $1,583.63, which sum represented three times the amount unreasonably withheld from the Complainants security deposit ($527.88 x 3 = $1,583.64). To date, the Respondent has failed to comply with the Order. Case #:
26651, Evelyn Hansen, et al. v.
Robert Burdette The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the bedroom window, and bathroom tub and floor in the rental property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) he incurred actual expense to repair that damage in the amount of $1,785.59; and (3) the cost incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest. The Complainants were requesting an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund the balance of their security deposit plus accrued interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) at the time the Complainants vacated, the windows and bathtub in the property were approximately 27 years old; (2) the Complainants did not damage the bedroom windows or the bathtub and bathroom floor in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; and (3) the Respondent credited the Complainants security deposit with $310.50 accrued interest, but the correct amount of accrued interest was $293.75. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay Complainants $1,543.75, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($1,250.00), plus accrued interest ($293.75). The Respondent subsequently complied with the Commissions Order and paid the Complainants the sum of $1,543.75. Case #:
26348, Holly Hill v. Kevin Maloney The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainant prematurely terminated her tenancy one month prior to the expiration of the lease renewal, and as a result, she was liable for May rent in the amount of $2,300.00; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy, and the only charges assessed against her security deposit were the costs he actually incurred to repair that damage; (3) the Complainants failure to repaint the walls in the property caused him to lose a prospective tenant; and (4) he issued to the Complainant, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair that damage. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that: (1) she did not owe May rent to the Respondent; and (2) the Respondent must refund the full amount of her security deposit plus accrued interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant breached the Renewal Lease by prematurely terminating her tenancy as of April 30, 2005. The Commission further finds that by failing to make good faith efforts to re-rent the Property beginning May 1, 2005, the Respondent failed to mitigate his damages as required by § 8-207(a)(3) of the State Code. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Complainant is not responsible for Mays rent of $2,300.00; (2) the Respondent sent notice to the Complainant regarding the disposition of her security deposit within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; (3) the Respondent properly withheld $250 from the Complainants security deposit for yard maintenance that was not performed, $37.50 for gutter cleaning, $4.00 for HVAC filters, and $70.00 for lawn mowing, for a total of $361.50; (4) the Respondent assessed against the Complainants security deposit costs that were not the responsibility of the Complainant to repair or maintain, or were not in excess in of ordinary wear and tear, in the amount of $829.96. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $3,029.22, which sum represented the amount of the Complainants security deposit ($4,600.00), less the amount previously refunded ($1,209.28) and less the amount properly withheld from the security deposit ($361.50) for damages. Appeal: The Respondent disagreed with the Commissions ruling and appealed the Order to the Circuit Court including posting a bond in the amount of the Order, $3,029.22. On February 12, 2007, the Circuit Court issued its Order which affirmed the Commissions Decision as to damages, but reversed the Commission on the issue of rent owed ($2,300.00), and ordered that $2,300.00 of the posted bond be returned to the Respondent, and the balance of the bond, $729.22, be paid to the Complainant. Case #:
25946, Lorraine Holmes v. Daryush Farazad The Respondent contended that: (1) he adjusted the description of the Property from four bedrooms to three bedrooms after an inspection by the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC); (2) he made all repairs to the Property requested by the Complainant in a timely and professional manner; (3) he deducted from the Complainants security deposit the cost he incurred to repair damage she caused to the Property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear; and (4) he did not harass the Complainant during her tenancy, but merely attempted to collect money owed to him by the Complainant. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire security deposit plus accrued interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) At the commencement of the Lease, HOC reduced the amount of the monthly rent paid to the Respondent from $1,800.00 to $1,514.00 per month, based on its determination that the property was a 3-bedroom unit, not a 4-bedroom unit; (2) the Respondent failed to send the Complainant an itemized list of damages being assessed against her security deposit, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy as required by the State Code, and therefore, the Respondent forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and (3) the Respondent failed to refund to the Complainant interest which had accrued on her security deposit which sum was $29.00. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $1,479.00, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($1,450.00), plus accrued interest ($29.00). Appeal: The Respondent disagreed with the Commissions ruling and appealed the Order to the Circuit Court including posting a bond in the amount of the Order, $1,479.00. On June 5, 2006, the Circuit Court issued its Order which upheld the Commissions findings, but ordered the Respondent to refund the security deposit plus accrued interest to the Montgomery County Department of Social Services which paid the security deposit to the Respondent on behalf of the Complainant. On March 8, 2007, the Circuit Court issued a check to the Respondent in the amount of $1,479.00 with instructions to refund it to the Montgomery County Department of Social Services. On June 13, 2007, the Respondent issued a check, in the full amount of $1,479.00, to the Department of Health and Human Services. Case #:
26559, Wubu v. Phan The Respondent contended that the Complainant: (1) failed to issue her a proper notice of his intention to vacate the Condominium, and therefore, he owes unpaid rent; (2) failed to pay for utility costs; (3) damaged the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy, and as a result, is not entitled to a refund of any portion of his security deposit plus accrued interest. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund his security deposit plus accrued interest. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Respondent failed to issue the Complainant a receipt for his payment of the security deposit that contained the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (2) the Complainant did not damage the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy, and did not owe any additional rent or utilities to the Respondent at the time he vacated; (3) the Respondent failed to send to the Complainant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy as required by the State Code; and (4) the Respondent failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with two and one-half (2 ˝) years accrued interest, as required by the State Code. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to: (1) pay Complainant $1,418.03, which sum represented his security deposit ($1,295.00), plus accrued interest ($123.03); and (2) for all future tenancies in Montgomery County, Maryland, use a lease agreement that fully complies with both the State Code and the Montgomery County Code. The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $1,418.03.
Case #:
26326, Baer v. Clark, et al The Respondent contended that: (1) the itemized list of damages was hand-delivered to the Complainant before the 45-day deadline had expired; (2) the Complainant did not move out of the property on May 15, 2005, nor did he agree to refund one-half of May 2005 rent to her if she did so; and (3) he charged the Complainant for damage she caused to the property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear. The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire security deposit, plus accrued interest, and one-half of May 2005 rent, plus a penalty of three times the withheld amount. Findings: The Commission found that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease Addendum, the Complainant's tenancy terminated as of May 15, 2005, and she did not owe additional rent to the Respondent beyond that date. The Commission further found that the Respondent breached the Lease Addendum by failing to pay the Complainant one-half of May 2005 rent in the amount of $987.50, within 15 days after she vacated the property. The Commission found that although the Complainant painted a bedroom with black paint during her tenancy without the Respondent's consent, which constituted damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and damaged the refrigerator door handle, shelf and kick-plate, mailbox, screen door and hardwood floors, in excess of ordinary wear and tear, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that he incurred any actual costs to repair those items, and therefore those charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit were disallowed. The Commission found that the Complainant did not damage the garbage disposal, window sashes, driveway, exterior fencing and gate, kitchen floor tiles, and carpets, in excess of normal wear and tear, and therefore, those charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit were disallowed. The Commission found that the Complainant was responsible to "keep grass and shrubbery trimmed and maintained," during her tenancy but because the Respondent's Agent waived this obligation and agreed to perform the required shrubbery trimming himself, the charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for trimming shrubbery and hauling away the debris, were disallowed. The Commission found that although the Complainant damaged the kitchen window and storm window and screen in the rear bedroom in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and the Respondent incurred actual expense to repair the damage, the Respondent had forfeited his right to withhold these charges from the Complainant's security deposit because he failed to send to the Complainant an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of Complainant's tenancy. The Commission found that pursuant to the Lease, Complainant was responsible for having the property de-fleaed and de-ticked by a professional exterminator at the termination of occupancy, but she failed to do so. Although the Respondent incurred actual expenses to have the property de-fleaed and de-ticked, he forfeited his right to withhold this amount from the Complainant's security deposit because he failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of Complainant's tenancy. The Commission further found that Respondent failed to provide sufficient probative evidence that a disputed water bill was for a period of time that the Complainant occupied the Property, and therefore, the amount assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for the unpaid water bill was disallowed. The Commission found that the Respondent miscalculated the amount of interest that had accrued on the Complainant's security deposit. The correct amount of accrued interest owed the Complainant was $108.63. The Commission concluded that the Respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty, and therefore, Complainant's request for such an award was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $2,960.02, which sum represented her security deposit ($1,975.00) plus accrued interest ($108.63), less the amount previously refunded ($111.11), plus the equivalent of one-half of May 2005 rent ($987.50). The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $2,960.02. Case #:
26025, Payne v. Forbes The Respondent contended that the Complainants: (1) damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) left the property in an unclean condition at the time they vacated; and (3) failed to pay the full amount of the rent due for November 2004. The Complainants requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their entire security deposit, plus accrued interest, less the amount previously refunded by the Respondent, for a total award of $1,437.10. Although she received proper notice of the hearing date and time, the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, which was conducted in her absence. Findings: The Commission found that at the time the Complainants vacated the property, the Complainants had paid all rent due to the Respondent, including their portion of November 2004 rent. Therefore, the Respondent's withholding of $542.00 from the Complainants' security deposit for unpaid rent was disallowed. The Commission further found the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate either that the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear or that she incurred any actual expense to repair that damage. Therefore, the Respondent's withholding of $895.85 from the Complainants' security deposit for repair of damages was disallowed. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants $1,437.10, which sum represented the Complainants' security deposit ($1,375.00) plus accrued interest ($82.50), less $20.40 previously refunded to the Complainants. The Respondent filed an appeal of the Commission's Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Circuit Court denied the appeal. The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainants $1,437.10.
Case #:
25714, Downing et al. v. Finlay The Complainants requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their entire security deposit, plus accrued interest, less the amount previously refunded by the Respondent, for a total award of $1,437.10. The Complainants sought an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund their entire security deposit of $2,200.00, plus accrued interest. In addition to the refund of their security deposit, the Complainants requested an additional award of threefold of the withheld amount, plus attorney's fees as a penalty. Findings: The Commission found that the Complainants breached the lease by abandoning the property as of May 31, 2004, one month prior to the expiration of the Lease, and that they did not pay rent for the month of June 2004. Upon notification by the Complainants that they were vacating the property one month early, the Respondents placed the property up for sale, but not for rent. The Respondents contended that this was their reasonable diligence to mitigate the Complainants' damages. The Commission found however that the Respondents' efforts to mitigate damages by placing the property only for sale did not satisfy the requirement of § 8-207(a)(3) of the Real Property Article, Maryland Annotated Code. Thus, the Complainants did not owe rent to the Respondents for the month of June 2004. The Commission further found that the Respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding what amount the Complainants owed toward the last water bill, or what final amount the Respondents paid to WSSC. The Commission found that the Respondents had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainant's $2,200.00 security deposit or $44.00 in accrued interest. However, the Commission did not find that the Respondents' withholding of the security deposit was egregious or in bad faith, and therefore the Complainants' request for an award of a three-fold penalty, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $2,244.00, which sum represents their security deposit of $2,200.00 plus $44.00 interest. The Respondents subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainants $2,244.00.
Case #:
25694, McCune v. Huggins, et al. The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy; (2) they incurred actual expense to repair those damages; and (3) the repairs were completed or ordered within 45 days after the termination of the Complainant's tenancy. The Complainant sought an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund the withheld portion of his security deposit, plus threefold that withheld amount as a penalty based on the egregiousness of the unreasonable withholding. Findings: The Commission found that the Complainant damaged the kitchen countertop in the property during his tenancy, and that the damage was in excess of ordinary wear and tear. However, the Commission further found that the Respondents failed to repair or replace the kitchen countertop, and did not incur any actual expense until September 30, 2004, six months after the termination of the Complainant's tenancy. Therefore, the Commission disallowed the charge of $325.00 assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for the replacement of the kitchen countertop. The Commission found that the Complainant did not damage the storm windows or storm door glass in the property during his tenancy. The Commission found that the damage was the direct result of vandalism by unknown parties and was not the responsibility of the Complainant. Therefore, the charges for replacing the storm windows ($213.64) and the broken storm door panels ($131.70) assessed against the Complainant's security deposit were disallowed. The Commission found that the Complainant mowed the grass, weeded the flower beds, trimmed and otherwise properly maintained the bushes and shrubbery at the property during his tenancy. Furthermore, the landscaping work was performed on April 28, 2004, at a cost of $185.00, but the bill was not paid, and no cost was actually incurred by the Respondents, until June 10, 2004, over 72 days after the termination of the Complainant's tenancy. Therefore, the $185.00 assessed against the Complainant's security deposit to weed flower beds, mow the grass and trim overgrown bushes and shrubs, was disallowed. At the hearing, Respondents' attorney withdrew the charge of $96.94 assessed by the Respondents against the security deposit to replace a missing under cabinet toaster oven in the kitchen. Therefore, the Commission disallowed the charge of $96.94 assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for replacement of the toaster oven. Although the Respondents had no reasonable basis to withhold the total sum of $952.28 from the Complainant's security deposit, the Commission found that the Respondents' actions did not rise to the level of egregiousness and bad faith necessary to award a penalty, and therefore, Complainant's request for such an award was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainant $952.28, which was the amount wrongfully withheld from his security deposit. The Respondents subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $952.28.
Case #:
25885, Masters v. Mishra The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy, and (2) he incurred actual expense to repair that damage after the termination of the Complainants tenancy, and therefore, was entitled to retain that portion of the security deposit. Findings: The Commission found that the Complainants did not damage the rear yard or lawn at the Property during their tenancy. The Commission further found that the Complainants properly maintained the yards and grounds of the Property during their tenancy in accordance with Lease addendum dated February 10, 2000, which required that, Grass must be well cut, bushes must be well trimmed and yard clean. These findings were supported by the credible testimony of both the Complainants and Respondents witness, landscape contractor Romeo Castro, that rear yard area cleaned out by the landscaper contained bushes and ground cover that were present of long duration, possibly 10 to 15 years. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence that the Complainants planted the bushes and ground cover or damaged the yard in any way. Therefore, the Respondents assessment of $1,300.00 against the Complainants security deposit for landscaping work was disallowed. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $1,300.00, which sum represents the amount improperly withheld from the Complainants security deposit.
Case #:
25651, Shao and v. Weissman The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; and (2) the cost actually incurred to repair that damage far exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest, and therefore, the Complainants were not entitled to a refund of any portion of the security deposit. Findings: The Commission found that the Respondent: (1) withheld from the Complainants security deposit: (A) the cost to replace appliances in the Property that, although unclean, were not damaged by abuse or in excess of ordinary wear and tear by the Complainants; (B) the cost to re-glaze a bathtub that was a pre-existing condition; (C) the cost to remove trash and debris and repair or replace items for which no cost was actually incurred; (D) the cost to repaint the interior walls and to clean the carpets, that were not damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear by the Complainants, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1) and (4) of the State Code; (2) failed to send to the Complainants an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of the Complainants tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to § 8-203(g)(2), the Respondent had forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants security deposit for damages; (3) without a reasonable basis, failed to refund any portion of the Complainants $1,850.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(e)(4) of the State Code; and (4) failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with two years simple interest at the rate of 4% per year, which sum is $148.00 ($1,850.00 deposit x 4% = $74.00 x 2 years = $148.00), in violation of § 8-203(e) of the State Code. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $1,198.00, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($1,850.00) plus accrued interest ($148.00).
Case #:
25695, Nicholson and v. Chandia The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to: (1) refund her entire security deposit of $1,487.00 plus accrued interest of $59.88, for a total of $1,546.88; (2) refund $49.99, the cost she incurred for a service call due to the Respondents failure to repair the non-working washing machine; (3) refund $400.48, the cost she incurred to rent a washing machine; and (4) reduce the amount of the final WSSC bill due to Respondents failure to repair a leaking toilet. The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; (2) she incurred actual expense to repair the damages which exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest; and (3) she sent to the Complainant by first class mail, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy and directed to the Complainant's last known address, three letters informing the Complainant of an unpaid water bill and the damages to the Property. Findings: The Commission found that:
The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $1,654.61, which sum represented the Complainants security deposit ($1,487.00) plus accrued interest ($59.48), plus reimbursement for the washing machine service call ($49.99), plus reimbursement for the washing machine rental ($400.48), less the amount of $342.34 for the water bill.
Case #:
25660, Wichter & Brooks v.
Ulmer & Pham The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy, and (2) the cost actually incurred to repair that damage far exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest, and therefore, the Complainants were not entitled to a refund. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainants failed to properly request a final walkthrough inspection of the Property and therefore, the Landlords were under no obligation to conduct a final inspection of the Property with them; (2) the Respondents withheld from the Complainants security deposit the cost to replace elements in the Property that, although unclean, were not damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear and did not warrant replacement, the cost to repair damage for which no proof of repair was provided, and the cost to make repairs which were the Respondents obligation, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1) and (4) of the State Code, which caused a defective tenancy; (3) the Respondents lawfully withheld from the Complainants security deposit the cost to replace one casement window and to repair a screen door, which were damages caused by the Complainants in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (4) the Respondents failed to credit the Complainants security deposit with one-year simple interest (4%), in violation of § 8-203(e) of the State Code; and (5) the Respondents, without a reasonable basis, withheld $3,654.00 from the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(e)(4) of the State Code. The Commission further found that the Respondents actions, although misguided, did not rise to the level of egregiousness and bad faith necessary to warrant a penalty or attorneys fees, and therefore, Complainants request for such an award was denied. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainants $3,654.60, which sum represented the Complainants security deposit ($3,850.00) plus accrued interest ($154.00) less damages rightfully withheld ($349.40).
Case #:
25070, Fraser
v. Tubelis Findings: After conducting a public hearing, the Commission ruled that the Tenants November 29, 2003 notice of termination was not a proper notice because it did not specify when the lease would be terminated and when the Tenant would move out. The Commission determined that a specific termination date was vital because without it a landlord cannot know when the Property is available to re-let. Therefore, the lease did not end December 31, 2003, and the Tenant owed rent and a late fee for January, 2004. Furthermore, the Landlords properly deducted the unpaid rent ($1, 210.00) and a late fee ($60.50) from the security deposit but failed to credit the Tenant with simple interest due for 3 years at 4% per year ($141.00). The Order: The Landlords must pay the tenant $45.50, which sum represents the Tenants security deposit ($1,175.00) plus accrued interest ($141.00) less the amount rightfully withheld ($1,270.50) for unpaid rent and late fee.
Case #:
25581, Pappas v. Grisso Findings: After conducting a public hearing on August 10, 2004, the Commission found the following: (1) the Complainant failed to properly request a final walkthrough inspection of the Property as required by the lease and § 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of her tenancy, and failed to pay the final water bill; (3) the Respondents assessed against the Complainants security deposit only those costs they actually incurred to pay the final water bill and to repair damage caused to the Property by the Complainant; and (4) the Respondents properly handled and disposed of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with Paragraph 3, Security Deposit, of the lease and § 8-203(f) and (g) of the State Code, and as a result no defective tenancy exists. The Order: (1) the Complainants complaint was dismissed, and (2) although the Respondents had requested to be compensated for additional lost rent and costs they claim to have incurred, in order for the Commission to consider such a claim, the Respondents were advised that they must first file, within the statute of limitations, a complaint with the Commission in accordance with Section 29-37, Landlords complaints, of the County Code.
Case
#:
25347 Hancock et al. v. Spak Ruling on Motion to Dismiss: At the hearing, the Landlords lawyer asked the Commission to dismiss the complaints of two tenants who did not appear at the hearing. The Commission denied the request. The Commission ruled that the presence of the missing Tenants was not necessary because they were properly named in the complaint, the documentary evidence showed that each Tenant paid a security deposit of $400, payment of which was not disputed by the Landlord and the Landlords security deposit notice was sent to all Tenants as a group and stated it was withholding the same amount of money from each Tenant and for the same reason. The Commission also ruled that Section 29-47(b) (2) of the County Code did not require each Tenant to be present at a hearing but only that each Tenant be a party to the complaint. Ruling on the Complaint: The Commission ruled that a notice sent by email instead of 1st-class mail within 45 days after the Tenants vacated the property violated Section 8-203(g) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended of the State Code (State Code), and therefore the Landlord had no right to withhold any money from the security deposits. In addition, the Commission ruled that the damages claimed by the Landlord were unjustified because either he failed to show they were not the result of ordinary wear and tear or because he failed to show he spent any money to correct the problem, in violation of Section 8-203(f). The Commission also found that the Landlord failed to pay interest on the deposits, in violation of Section 8-203(e) of the State Code. Finally, the Commission ruled that the Landlords leases violated Sections 8-203(a) and (e) of the State Code because they did not state the information on security deposits required by law and because they stated that no interest would be paid on the deposits. The Order: The Landlord must refund to the Tenants, within 30 days, the full amount he withheld from the security deposits ($800) plus lawful interest ($80) for a total of $880.
Case #:
25414,
Montenegro v. Tadkowski The Commission held a public hearing on April 21, 2004 Findings: The Commission found the following: (1) the parties entered into a lease beginning April 1, 2003, and ending March 31, 2004, at a monthly rent of $1100 and the Complainant paid a security deposit of $2200; (2) on June 2, 2003, in writing and otherwise, the Complainant notified the Respondent that the units air conditioning was not working; (3) June 4, 2003, the Respondents agent informed the Complainant that the Respondent will not hold you to your lease but will release you with no penalty should you want to relocate; (4) on June 6, 2003, the Respondent issued a Notice to Vacate, telling the Complainant to move out by July 31, 2003, but in correspondence dated June 11, 2003, the Respondent withdrew the Notice to Vacate, reiterating that he would release the Complainant from the lease if she wished to move; (5) on June 17, 2003, the Office of Housing Code Inspection ordered Respondent to fix or replace the air conditioning system within 30 days; (6) on or about July 3, 2003, the Respondent replaced the air conditioning system; (7) on September 22, 2003, the Complainant sent a notice to the Respondent informing him that she was accepting his offer to terminate the lease without penalty and would vacate the property by the end of September, 2003; (8) on September 23, 2003, the Respondent notified Complainant that she had no permission to vacate the unit prematurely, that his letter of June 4, 2003, was rescinded, and that he would hold her to the full term of the lease; (9) the Complainant moved out by September 30, 2003; (10) on October 14, 2003, the Respondent sent Complainant a notice stating he would withhold $90 from the security deposit for cleaning and minor damage and the rest of the deposit for any lost rents; he added he would place the unit up for sale or rent; (11) on December 10, 2003, the Respondent sent a new notice to the Complainant stating that he was withholding $1162 for various itemized damages, $1100 for the October rent, and $55 for the October late payment fee. He added that he would credit the sum of $11 as interest on the deposit at the rate of 1% per year; (12) in spite of his claim to rent or sell the unit, the Respondent only advertised it for sale beginning October 6, 2003, and not for rent; (13) the Complainant paid $1000 in attorney fees to pursue the refund of her security deposit. Commission Rulings: (1) The fundamental issue was whether or not the Complainant had the right to terminate her lease early and without penalty. The Commission noted that the Respondents notice of June 4, as worded, was an unconditional offer that Complainant could accept within a reasonable time, and that the Complainant did accept it within a reasonable time. The offer was not withdrawn until after the Complainant accepted it, and the withdrawal was therefore too late. Therefore, the Complainant properly terminated the lease as of September 30, 2003 and owed no rent beyond that date. (2) The Respondent failed to provide proof that the Complainant caused any damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear even though the Commission had subpoenaed such evidence from him, and therefore was not entitled to withhold any charges for repairs from the deposit under Section 8-203(f) (1). (3) By failing to offer the unit for rent after the Complainant moved out, the Respondent failed to properly mitigate his damages, as required by Section 8-207 of the Maryland Real Property Article, and therefore could not charge for any lost rent even if the Complainant had terminated prematurely. (4) The notice of December 10, 2003 listing many repairs not mentioned in the October 14 notice, did not comply with the 45 day deadline of Section 8-203(g) (1) and therefore the Respondent had no right to withhold such additional damages from the security deposit. (5) Respondent violated Section 8-203(e) by failing to credit the Complainant with interest at the rate of 2% every 6 months, and calculated the correct interest to be 2% of $2200, or $44. The Commission also found: (6) that the Respondent acted in bad faith by attempting to withdraw his unconditional offer to release Complainant from the lease without penalty after she had accepted that offer, and therefore, under Section 8-203(e)(4) he was liable to the Complainant for a penalty in the amount of the security deposit plus interest, or $2244; and (7) the Respondent was liable for Complainants actual attorney fees up to the amount of $1000 pursuant to Section 8-203(e)(4). The Order: That the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of $2200 for the full refund of the security deposit, $44 for 6 months interest on the deposit, $2244 as a penalty, and $1000 for attorney fees, for a total of $5488.00, within 30 days.
Case #'s:
24657,
25161; Harri Arledge v. Ralph and Eugenia Brooks Summary: The tenant, Harri Arledge (the Complainant) filed Case # 24657 claiming that she was given a defective Notice to Vacate by her landlords, Ralph and Eugenia Brooks (the Respondents), was being charged for repairs that were not her responsibility, and was not being reimbursed for repairs she made to the premises. Subsequently, having moved out of the property, she filed Case # 25161, claiming that the Respondents violated the Maryland Security Deposit law by failing to pay interest on her deposit, by sending her a defective notice withholding her deposit for damages, and by charging her for repairs that were not excess wear and tear. The Respondents claimed that the Complainant had damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and they incurred expenses in excess of the amount of the security deposit. The Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2004, and held the record open for an additional 30 days to allow the parties to submit additional documentation of their claims. Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant did pay for repairs to the property, but she caused the damages and so the repairs were her responsibility; (2) based on all the evidence, the Complainant did not cause any other damages to the premises beyond ordinary wear and tear; (3) the Respondents mailed their notice notifying the Complainant that they were withholding the security deposit within the 45 days required by law, but the notice did not contain any statement listing the costs paid by Respondents to repair damages allegedly cause by Complainant; and (4) the Complainants failed to pay any interest on the security deposit of $2500, which they had held for 4 years. The Commission ruled: (1) Case # 24657 was dismissed because the Complainant was not entitled to reimbursement for the repairs she made; (2) the Respondents violated Maryland Real Property Article Section 8-203(f) (1) by withholding the security deposit for damages which were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (3) the Respondents violated Section 8-203(g)(1) by failing to send, within 45 days of the termination of the tenancy, a proper written notice listing the damages together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair those damages; and (4) the Respondents violated Section 8-203(e)(1) by failing to pay annual interest on the security deposit. The Commission calculated the interest, at the statutory rate of 4% per year for 4 years on $2500 to be $400. The Order: The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay $2900 to the Complainant within 30 days.
Case #:
25103, Gilbert and
Juwane Fletcher v. Edward Blank Commission Findings: The Commission found that the tenants, after giving notice, vacated the property on February 28, 2003. The Commission found that the tenants failed to provide sufficient evidence that they requested an inspection in writing and by certified mail as required by Section 8-203(f). The Commission also found that the landlord failed to send an itemized list of damages to the tenants at their last known address, which was the address of the rental property, within 45 days after the tenants vacated, in violation of Section 8-203(g), and, further, that the landlord failed to provide any proof, such as invoices or bills, to show that he spent any money to make repairs to the property. Therefore, it was the Commissions finding that the landlord had violated Section 203(f) by making deductions from the deposit when no damage had been caused by the tenants. The Order: The Commission found that the landlord was not entitled to withhold any money from the deposit. The Commission ordered the landlord to refund the full deposit of $995 plus interest of $59.70, within 30 days.
Case:
#:
25296, Abdivahim and Zahra Burrow v. Somerset Development Corp. Commission Findings: The Complainants entered into a written lease with the Respondent on August 20, 1999, and paid a security deposit of $200. The lease was renewed several times, with the last renewal to expire August 31, 2003. On July 1, 2003, the Respondent gave the Complainants a proper 60-day notice to vacate when the lease expired on August 31, and the Complainants did vacate as directed. The Complainants were up-to-date in their rent when they moved out. By the middle of September, 2003, the Respondent sent Complainants a letter stating that the security deposit of $200, plus interest of 4% ($32.73) would not be refunded because the landlord was deducting $75 for repairing damage to a countertop, $75 for removing mold from the bathroom, and $82.73 for repairing a bathroom vanity. In addition, at that time the Respondent hired a debt collection agency to collect another $1,267 from the Complainants, claiming additional damages to the unit, including $1,000 to replace a carpet, and various cleaning and repair costs. A copy of the alleged costs was sent to the Complainants. The Commission ruled that the Respondent failed to provide any proof or documentation that it spent any money to clean or repair any items. Therefore, all the stated deductions from the security deposit, were disallowed. Commission Order: The Commission ordered the Respondent to refund the full security deposit plus interest ($232 total) to the Complainants. The Commission further ordered the Respondent to cease all collection action against the Complainants and to notify all credit reporting agencies to which the alleged debt was reported that the debt had been reported in error and is to be expunged from the Complainants records. Respondent was also ordered to provide documentation to the Commission that information sent to any credit bureau had been expunged.
Case #:
25202,
Gaalich v. Garbout The Commission held a public hearing on this matter, taking testimony from both parties, on January 15, 2004, and held the record open for an additional 7 days to permit the Complainant to file additional documentation that would support his position. The Commission found that the Complainant never paid a security deposit. The Complainants only documentary evidence produced by the Complainant, in support of his claim, that he paid a security deposit consisted of the following: 1) a statement in the lease, which was made in December, 2002, that a security deposit was paid; and 2) a bank statement showing that he wrote a check for $1200 at the beginning of January, 2003. According to the lease, both the security deposit and the monthly rent were $1200. The Commission believed the Respondents testimony that the Complainant was supposed to pay a security deposit as required by the lease, but never did. The check reflected in the bank statement was just as likely to have been the first months rent and not the security deposit. The Commission found that since no security deposit was tendered by the Complainant, the complaint was dismissed. Case #:
25207,
Chorvat and Bowman v. Daley On April 4, 2003, Crystal Chorvat and Bobbiann Bowman (the Complainants) filed a complaint against Paul and Rowshon Daley (the Respondents). The Complainants claimed that the Respondents: (1) failed to honor Section 8-212.1 of the Maryland Real Property Article, regarding early lease terminations for military personnel; (2) failed to refund any part of their security deposit within 45 days after they vacated the premises in violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; (3) assessed improper charges against their security deposit in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) and (2) of the State Code; and (4) failed to itemize the deductions from the security deposit within 45 days after they vacated the premises, in violation of Section 8-203 (g)(1) of the State Code. The Respondents assert that: (1) only Complainant Bowman received active duty orders and Complainant Chorvat therefore had no right to terminate the lease early under the military termination provisions of Maryland law; (2) Complainant Chorvat breached the lease by moving out early and not paying rent; (3) the Complainants damaged the property beyond ordinary wear and tear; and (4) the lost rent and property damage exceeded the security deposit so Complainant Chorvat was not entitled to any refund. The Commission held hearings on November 19, 2003, and February 11, 2004, and heard testimony from both of the Complainants and from Respondent Paul Daley, who was also represented by attorney Sylvia Wagner. The Commission found that: (1) the Complainants entered into a lease with Respondents to begin November 1, 2002, and to end August 31, 2003, with monthly rent of $1995 and a total security deposit (including pet deposit and carpet deposit) of $2895; (2)in February, 2003, Complainant Bowman received orders assigning her to active duty in the Persian Gulf; (3)on March 3, 2003, the Complainants gave written notice to the Respondents that they were terminating their lease effective March 31, 2003 pursuant to Section 8-212.1 of the State Code; (4) on March 3, 2003 both Complainants vacated the premises; (5) the carpet cleaning bill was only $175 although the carpet cleaning deposit was $300; (6) the Respondents sent the Complainants a bill for unpaid rent on July 15, 2003, demanding rent at a reduced rate through July 30; (7) on September 12, 2003, the Respondents sent an itemized list of deductions from the security deposit and claimed an additional balance due of $1919 for unpaid rent and property damages. The Commission ruled that under Section 8-212.1 of the State Code, if a tenant receives assignment to active duty and exercises his or her right to terminate the lease early, the co-tenant may also terminate the lease early under the same law. Therefore, the Complainants could both terminate the lease on 30 days notice and not be liable for rent due after that date. In this case, because notice was given March 3, the lease was legally terminated April 2, and the Complainants owed an additional 2 days rent after March 31, or, $131. Therefore the Respondents had no right to withhold from the security deposit any rent charges in excess of $131. In addition, the Respondents failed to return the deposit, or to provide an itemization of deductions from it, within the 45 days after the Complainants vacated the premises, and therefore the Respondents could not withhold any charges for property damages. The Commission ordered the Respondents to refund the sum of $2,788 to the Complainants. (Editors Note: Effective January 1, 2004, a Federal Military Termination law went into effect which slightly modifies the Maryland law by requiring military personnel to give 30 days written notice effective on the next rent due date. 50 U.S.C. App. 521. However, the Landlord might be bound by language already in the lease that permits the tenant to terminate with less notice.) Case #:
24960, John Anderson v. Demetrius and Joanne Albanes The Commission held a public hearing on February 2, 2004, and heard testimony, and received evidence, from both parties. The Commission found that: (1) the parties entered into a lease on July 26, 1996, at which time the Complainant paid a security deposit of $1950; (2) The lease was renewed several times, with the last renewal due to expire April 30, 2001; and the security deposit was increased to $2350; (3) On March 30, 2001 the Respondents issued a notice to terminate the lease and to vacate the premises by April 30, 2001. This was extended by agreement until May 31, 2001; (4) The Complainant vacated the property on May 31, 2001, having paid rent in full through that date; (5) On June 29, 2001, the Respondents sent by first class mail, certified, a letter to the Complainant itemizing deductions from the security deposit of $1647 for excess wear and tear and refunding the sum of $1154. (6) The Complainant refused to accept the certified letter or to pick it up and it was returned by the US Postal Service to the Respondents on July 18, 2001. (7) On July 21, 2001, the Respondents re-sent the same notice by regular US Mail, but this time they added a deduction of $36 for an unpaid water bill. The Commission found that: (1) No rent reduction was due for lack of heat, because the Respondents were not negligent: they provided space heaters and had the system restored within 24 hours of the time they received notice of the problem; (2) the Respondents complied with the State Code on security deposits by mailing the notice during the time required by law even though the Complainant did not take delivery of it during the 45 days; (3) the following deductions from the security deposit were proper and represented actual costs to the Respondents: a) $212 to change all the locks, because the Complainant did not return all the keys to all the different doors at the house; b) $350 to repair only the portion of the floor damaged by the Complainant out of a total refinishing estimate of $500; c) $120 to remove spots from the carpet; d) $212 to apply 2 coats of paint to walls that were excessively dirty; e) $36 for the water bill; f) $250 for cleaning the yard and shrubbery, this fee was also justified on the basis of photographs submitted by the Respondents. (4) The following charges were not allowed by the Commission: a) $350 for replacing damaged flagstones, there being insufficient evidence that the Complainant damaged them as opposed to ordinary wear and tear; b) $20 for a broken refrigerator handle, because due to the age of the refrigerator this was deemed to be ordinary wear and tear; c) $99 for various other items which the Commission concluded were ordinary wear and tear rather than damage caused by the Complainant. (5) The Respondents miscalculated the amount of interest due on the security deposit and the correct amount due was $381, not $451. The Commission ordered the Respondents to refund a total of $1,550, representing the original deposit of $2350 plus interest of $381, less allowable charges of $1180 for excess wear and tear by the Complainant. Case #:
24967; Allen v. Bibb & Hayes, Hayes Real Estate, Inc. The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (2) they incurred actual cost to make those repairs; and (3) they did not agree to reimburse the Complainant for the cost she incurred to clean the carpet. A public hearing commenced on September 17, 2003, and was continued until November 5, 2003, and concluded on that date. Commissioner Lyana Palmer was absent, but the Complainant and the Respondents chose to proceed with the hearing with Panel Members, Tim Gillespie and Jay Krampf, with Jay Krampf acting as Panel Chairperson. The Commission determined to leave the record of these hearings open for two weeks until November 19, 2003, to allow the Respondents the opportunity to submit copies of cancelled checks, invoices and communications related to the deductions made from the Complainants security deposit. Before the record of these hearings closed, Respondent Hayes submitted to the Commission photocopies of the following four cancelled checks and explanations: The record of these hearings closed on November 11, 2003. The Commission extended the time period within which it would decide this matter. The Commission found that: (1) the Respondents failed to deliver the carpets in the Property to the Complainant, at the commencement of her tenancy, in a clean and sanitary condition, and also failed to clean them after being instructed to do so by the Departments Housing Code Enforcement Section; (2) the Complainant incurred actual costs of $200.00 to clean the carpet and therefore, the Respondents are liable to the Complainant for $200.00; (3) the Respondents were within their right to withhold from the Complainants security deposit the cost incurred to pay the final WSSC bill ($169.96), to repaint damaged or dirty walls ($300.00), to replace a broken storm window in the garage ($125.00); to replace eight burned-out light bulbs ($30.00); and to repair a bent water line in the garage ($75.00), for a total of $699.96; (4) the Respondents assessment against the Complainants security deposit for a portion of the WSSC bill that was not the Complainants responsibility ($111.23); for a missing garage door opener that was never given to the Complainant ($45.00); and for damage that was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear and/or for which no cost was incurred $45.00 to repair handrail, $50.00 to repair a torn screen, $35.00 to repair the countertop, $75.00 for trash removal, and $80.00 for leaf raking for a total of $441.23 is disallowed; and (5) the Respondents owe the Complainant the undisputed amount of the security deposit, in the amount of $106.81; and, (6) the Respondents failed to properly handle and dispose of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest. Although the Commission concluded that the Respondents wrongfully withheld $441.23 from the Complainants security deposit, the Respondents actions did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness that would warrant the awarding of a penalty. Therefore, the Complainants request for a penalty is denied. However, the Commission cautioned Hayes Real Estate, Inc. that it is concerned about its lack of attention to detail that is apparent from the withholding for a garage door opener that was never issued to the Complainant and for a greater amount than the total of the WSSC bill. Accordingly, the Commission urged Hayes Real Estate, Inc. to modify its business practices because such behavior in future cases lead to the imposition of a penalty. The Commission On Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainant $748.04, which sum represents her security deposit ($1,200.00) plus accrued interest ($48.00), plus reimbursement of $200.00 for carpet cleaning, less damages and costs properly withheld ($699.96). The foregoing Decision was concurred in unanimously by Commissioner Tim Gillespie and Commissioner Jay Krampf, Panel Chairperson. Commissioner Lyana Palmer did not participate in deliberations or vote on this case. Case #:
24824, Venable-Sullivan v. Grover Specifically, the Complainant asserts that: (1) at the time she vacated, the Property had been professionally cleaned and was not damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (2) the Respondent charged her for a water bill that she had already paid; (3) the Respondent charged her for a lock change which she had previously requested due to a burglary at the Property; (3) the Respondent failed to acknowledge pre-existing pet damage to the carpet from the previous tenant, and charged her for damage to the carpet that was caused by the previous tenants cat; and, (4) the Respondent charged her for damage to the Property that was either not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was never repaired, or for which no actual cost was incurred. The Respondent contends that the Complainant: (1) damaged the carpet in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (2) he paid for extensive cleaning due to cat hairs throughout the Property; (3) the costs charged against the Complainants security deposit were justified; and, (4) he did not violate the State security deposit law. After holding a public hearing on September 24, 2003, and later extending the time period within which it would decide this matter, the Commission found that: (1) the Respondent was within his right to withhold from the Complainants security deposit the cost incurred to replace the front door knob ($165.00), to repair and re-paint the front door frame and trim ($28.35), to clean the carpets ($379.00), and to replace two hard-wired smoke detectors ($29.37), for a total of $601.72; (2) the Respondents assessment against the Complainants security deposit of the amount of the final WSSC water bill ($54.40) that had already been paid by the Complainant is disallowed; (3) the Respondents assessment against the Complainants security deposit for the costs of repairs for which the Commission found no cost was incurred ($420.00 for cleaning, $500.00 for carpet replacement, $200.00 painting and $20.63 for installation of smoke detectors) is disallowed; (4) the correct amount of simple interest accrued by the Complainants security deposit is $155.00. Accordingly, the Commission On Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $328.28, which sum represents her security deposit ($775.00) plus accrued interest ($155.00) less damages and costs properly withheld ($601.72). The foregoing Decision was concurred in unanimously by Commissioner Mattie Ligon, Commissioner Tina Smith-Nelson, and Commissioner Christopher Toven, Panel Chairperson. Case #:
24699, Johnson/Hendershot v. Zivetz/Mlawer Specifically, the Complainants assert that: (1) they informed the Respondents of their intention not to move into the Property on March 18, 2002, and requested the return of their Application Deposit, less advertising costs, plus the pre-paid first months rent; and (2) Complainant Johnson only expressed renewed interest in renting the Property after the Respondents informed the Complainants of their intention to retain their application deposit for lost rent. The Complainants are seeking a refund of their entire Application Deposit and first months rent ($3,190.00) less advertising and handling costs ($115.00), for a total of $3,075.00. The Respondents contend that they lost rent as a result of the Complainants failure to sign the lease agreement after they had initially agreed to move into the Property, which entitles them to retain the Complainants entire application deposit and first months rent. After holding a public hearing on July 7, 2003, and after extending the time period to decide this matter, the Commission found that: (1) because no lease agreement was executed between the Complainants and the Respondents and possession of the Property was not delivered to Complainants, there was never any tenancy created and therefore, rent for the Property never came due; (2) in the absence of any lease agreement between the parties, which would have obligated the Complainants to pay the Respondents a security deposit and rent for the Property, the Respondents and the Complainants are bound only by the terms and conditions of the Rental Application, which clearly disclosed the financial liability of the Complainants if they refused to execute a lease after being approved by the Respondents; (3) although the Respondents paid to paint and clean the Property in early April 2002, those costs do not constitute an amount actually expended as a result of the application that can be retained by the Respondents under the provisions of the Rental Application; and, (4) any expenses incurred by Respondents to advertise the Property for rental do not constitute amounts actually expended as a result of the application, and as such, the Respondents were not entitled to retain advertising costs from the Complainants deposit. The Complainants, however, offered in their complaint to pay Respondents $45.00 for advertising. Therefore, the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Respondents to pay the Complainants $3,125.00, which sum represents the Complainants Application Deposit ($1,595.00), plus first months rent ($1,595.00), less the fee incurred by Respondents to withdraw the security deposit from the escrow account ($20.00) and advertising costs incurred by Respondents ($45.00). Case #:
12489, Calaway v. Joshi A public hearing was held on June 11, 2003. The Commission concluded that: (1) although the Respondent did provide the Complainants with a written list of damage claimed against their security deposit on September 10, 2001, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, the list was not sent by first class mail, and the Respondent did not provide the Complainants a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair the damage; (2) the Respondent failed to provide any reliable or conclusive evidence that she incurred any actual costs to replace carpet at the Property; (3) although the Complainants lived at the Property for six and a half years, the Respondent credited the Complainants with only 2 ˝ % interest (rather than the statutorily required 4 %) on their security deposit for a tenancy of five years and four months; (4) the Complainants are not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of replacing the water heater at the Property because they failed to comply with the lease requirement that they receive prior approval from the Respondent before ordering repairs or replacements; (5) the Respondent raised the Complainants rent by $200 per month in January, 2001, without sending the Complainants written notice of the increase; and, (6) the Complainants are liable for the payment of August 2001 rent because they did not remove all their belongings from the Property until August 22, 2001. The Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $3,692.00, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($3,300.00), plus accrued interest ($792.00), less August 2001 rent ($1,800.00), plus reimbursement for overpayment of rent ($1,400.00). Case #:
24584, Jeng/Gaye
v. Kelly After holding a public hearing on May 12, 2003, and subsequently extending the time period to issue this Decision and Order, the Commission concluded: (1) the Respondent failed to send the Complainants an itemized list of damages he was claiming against the Complainants security deposit, together with a statement of actual costs incurred, within 45 days after termination of the Complainants tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to § 8-203(g)(2) of the State Code, the Respondent has forfeited his right to withhold any part of the Complainants security deposit for damages; and (2) the Respondent failed to provide the Complainants with the requested opportunity to be present for a final walk-through inspection of the Property, in violation of section 8-203(f)(1)(ii) of the State Code, and therefore pursuant to section 8-203(f)(1)(vii) the Respondent has forfeited his right to withhold any part of the Complainants security deposit for damages. In view of the foregoing, the Commission of Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainants $961.64, which sum represents the refund of the Complainants entire security deposit of $900.00, plus accrued interest in the amount of $180.00, less four days rent of $118.36.
Case #:
24684, Murray v. Conerly/Hayes Real Estate, Inc. The Tenant specifically asserts: 1) she did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; (2) the costs assessed against her security deposit were to repair damages that were either pre-existing and caused by the previous tenant who had pets, or were caused by a leaking roof that damaged the carpet; (3) during her tenancy she paid for plumbing repairs, in the amount of $350.00, that were not her responsibility, and the Respondents Agent failed to reimburse her for those expenses after agreeing to do so; and (4) the Respondents Agent failed to replace a defective refrigerator in the Property, and refused to reimburse her for the cost she incurred, $557.85, to purchase a new one. The Complainant does not dispute that she owes pro rata rent for the period of August 1-9, 2002. The Complainant is seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund her security deposit ($700.00) plus accrued interest ($112.00), less pro rata rent for the period August 1 9, 2002 ($169.19), and to reimburse her for plumbing repairs ($350.00) and the cost she incurred to purchase a new refrigerator ($557.85), for a total award of $1,550.66. The Respondents and/or Respondents Agent contend that: (1) the Complainant held-over in the Property from August 1, 2002 through August 9, 2002, and failed to pay rent for that period of time; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; (3) they incurred actual expense to repair damage that exceeded the amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest; and (4) they never agreed to reimburse the Complainant for the cost she incurred to replace the refrigerator. However, the Respondents and/or Respondents Agent concede that the Complainant is entitled to a credit of $350.00 for the cost she incurred to make plumbing repairs to the Property during her tenancy. After holding a public hearing on March 19, 2003, the Commission ordered the Respondents pay the Complainant $1,250.66, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($700.00), plus accrued interest ($112.00), less pro rata August 2002 rent ($169.19), and repair costs properly withheld ($300.00) plus reimbursement for plumbing repairs ($350.00), and reimbursement for the purchase of new refrigerator ($557.85).[1] The foregoing decision was concurred in by Commissioner Lyana Palmer and Commissioner Mattie Ligon, Panel Chairperson. Commissioner Christopher Toven dissented.
[1] The Commission is troubled by the testimony of Respondents Agent at the hearing that he informed the Complainant that, Weve had a lot of difficulty with having the inspectors from this department here. There are quite a few. And it is true what I told you [Complainant] that when many, many repairs have to happen to a house, and we just already told you the house was not in perfect condition, that the rent would go up. (See Transcript at page 96, lines 20-25). Furthermore, in response to Complainants question, Do you recall telling me in any phone call not to let him [the Departments Inspector] in, that Respondents Agent answered Yes. Not only did Respondents Agent fail to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property after being put on notice by the Complainant, which was his obligation pursuant to Paragraph 9, Maintenance, of the Lease and Section 29-30, Obligations of landlords, of the County Code, but his statement to the Complainant threatening to raise her rent if she allowed access to the Property by the Departments Housing Code Enforcement Inspector was retaliatory, and his actions constitute a serious violation of Section 29-32, Prohibited practices, of the County Code. Tenants in Montgomery County are guaranteed the right to complain to their landlords or the Department about defects in rental properties and to request that those defects be repaired in a timely manner without fear of retaliation, including a threat to increase the rent based on such reporting. Furthermore, it is not only the obligation of tenants under the terms of the lease to report defects to their landlords, but it is in the landlords best business interest that such defects are reported to prevent deterioration of the rental property. The Respondents and Respondents Agent are hereby notified that it is a serious violation of Chapter 29 of the County Code to advise a tenant not to allow access to rental property by the Departments inspectors, or to attempt to coerce a tenant, under threat of a rent increase, not to allow such inspections, and that any such future violation may result in the immediate revocation of the Rental Facility License(s) for any and all rental properties owned, operated or managed by the Respondents and/or Respondents Agent in Montgomery County, Maryland. Case #:
24538,
Nadler v. Hyder/Marydale Realty Management, Inc. The Respondents and/or Respondents Agent asserted that: (1) the Property was delivered to the Complainants at the commencement of their tenancy in a clean and sanitary condition, including the carpets; (2) during their tenancy, Complainants were only assessed the cost of plumbing repairs which were Complainants responsibility; (3) the Complainants failed to issue proper written notice of their intention to vacate the Property as required by Paragraph 22a of the lease agreement, and therefore, the Complainants are liable for May 2002 rent in the amount of $2,200.00, plus a $110.00 late fee; and (4) the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear by the Complainants, and they incurred actual expense to repair that damage, $25.00 to cut the grass and $15.00 to remove glue from the kitchen countertop. After holding a public hearing on February 24, 2003, the Commission ordered the Respondents and/or Respondents Agent to pay the Complainants $2,338.25, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($2,100.00) plus accrued interest ($126.00), plus a refund for bathroom caulking ($134.00), plus a refund of the improper late fee ($18.25), less the amount rightfully withheld from the security deposit ($40.00). The Commission notes its concern that Respondents Agent failed to fully participate in the investigation of this matter by not providing requested documents to the Department prior to the hearing, as required by Section 29-5(c) of the County Code, and cautioned Respondents and Respondents Agent against engaging in such behavior in the future. Case #:
24775, Salkeld v. Moustafa After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that the Respondents failed to prove the existence of damage to the walls beyond ordinary wear and tear. Furthermore, the Respondents failure to refund accrued interest on the Complainants security deposit constitutes a violation of § 8-203(e) (1) of the State Code. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that the Respondents pay the Complainant $894.00, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($2,400.00), plus accrued interest ($144.00), less that portion of security deposit previously refunded ($1,400.00) and that portion of security deposit properly withheld ($250.00). Based on the Commissions finding that there does not exist particularly egregious conduct nor bad faith on the part of the Respondents in withholding a portion of the security deposit, Complainants request for treble damages was DENIED. Subsequent to the issuance of the Order, Respondent, Salah Moustafa, notified Commission staff that the Order contained a mistake. Specifically, the Order incorrectly and mistakenly determined that interest on the security deposit had not been paid to the Complainant after the termination of her tenancy, when in fact it had. Evidence presented at the hearing, a check made payable to the Complainant in the amount of $1,544.00 (Respondents Exhibit No. 2) included $144.00 in accrued interest. Upon review of the transcript and evidence presented at the hearing on March 17, 2003, the Commission found that prior to the hearing the Respondents did, in fact, pay the Complainant interest which had accrued on her security deposit, in the amount of $144.00, as required by § 8-203(e)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended State Code. Therefore, on April 25, 2003, the Commission amended its Decision and Order as follows:
Case #:
24775, Salkeld v. Moustafa After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that the Respondents failed to prove the existence of damage to the walls beyond ordinary wear and tear. Furthermore, the Respondents failure to refund accrued interest on the Complainants security deposit constitutes a violation of § 8-203(e) (1) of the State Code. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that the Respondents pay the Complainant $894.00, which sum represents the Complainants security deposit ($2,400.00), plus accrued interest ($144.00), less that portion of security deposit previously refunded ($1,400.00) and that portion of security deposit properly withheld ($250.00). Based on the Commissions finding that there does not exist particularly egregious conduct nor bad faith on the part of the Respondents in withholding a portion of the security deposit, Complainants request for treble damages was DENIED. Case #:
24442, Henningsen v. Schappell The Complainants also asserted that: (1) the water heater in the Property was defective and had ceased to operate; (2) the Respondent gave them oral permission to paint the Property any color they desired; (3) the carpet was damaged by water that seeped into the house due to the Respondents failure to put gutters on the house; and (4) the costs assessed against their security deposit were to repair damages that existed prior to the commencement of their tenancy. The Complainants amended their original complaint to also allege that the Respondent failed to refund any portion of their $915.00 security deposit plus six (6) years accrued interest. After holding a public hearing, the Commission concluded: (1) the Respondent altered the Leases by changing the date late payments would be charged from ten (10) days to five (5) days in violation of Section 29-27(i) of the County Code. However, the Complainants failed to demonstrate that they ever paid an improper late fee to the Respondent at any time during their tenancy; (2) the Respondent altered the Leases by increasing the amount due from Complainants for each repair from $50.00 to $75.00 in violation of Section 29-30(a)(3) of the County Code. However, the Complainants failed to demonstrate that they ever paid an improper maintenance fee to the Respondent at any time during their tenancy; (3) the Respondent altered the Leases by reducing the interest on the security deposit from 4% to 3% in violation of § 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; (4) The Respondent did not alter the Leases to change the amount of a late fee from 5% to 10% as alleged by the Complainants, and the Complainants failed to demonstrate that they ever paid an improper late fee to the Respondent at any time during their tenancy; (5) the Complainants violated Paragraph 9, Maintenance, of the Leases by repainting several rooms in the Property during their tenancy without the Respondents knowledge or permission; and, (6) the Complainants violated Paragraph 9, Maintenance, of the Leases by failing to report at least three plumbing problems to the Respondent during their tenancy, which resulted in damage to the Property. The cost incurred by the Respondent to repair damages caused to the Property by the Complainants was in excess of ordinary wear and tear and exceeded the full amount of the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest. Therefore, the Complainants request for a refund of their $915.00 security deposit plus $219.60 in accrued interest is DENIED. In addition, the Commission ordered that the Respondent must notify all tenants in rental properties he owns, operates or manages in Montgomery County, Maryland that:
Respondent must provide the Department with copies of all such notices sent to his tenants. Case #:
13290, Garcia/Barreto v. Kushawaha On October 10, 2002, the Landlords filed a cross-complaint against the Tenants in which they asserted that, in addition to the Tenants entire security deposit, they were also entitled to an extra $706.00 in damages caused by the Tenants. Based on the fact that the Landlords claim was predicated on the identical set of facts as raised by the Tenants, the Commission consolidated the Landlords and Tenants claims and heard both matters at a hearing on December 12, 2002. After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Landlords failed to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, to the Tenants last known address, in violation of §8-203 (g)(1) State Code, and as a result, the Landlords forfeited their right to withhold any portion of the Tenants deposit for damages; (2) although the Landlords forfeited their right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for physical damage caused to the Property by the Tenants in excess of ordinary wear and tear, the Landlords did not forfeit their right to withhold from the deposit unpaid rent ($253.18), a return check fee ($25.00) and an unpaid water bill ($269.00) which were the Tenants obligation to pay under the lease; (3) the Tenants damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear only in the amount of $87.00; (4) the remaining damage claims by the Landlords were unsupported and without merit and therefore, their cross-complaint was dismissed with prejudice; (5) the Landlords failure to repair the Tenants water heater in a timely fashion constituted a substantial breach of the lease and reduced the value of the Tenants leasehold by 15% during the month of November 2001, which the Commission determined to be $206.25; and (6) although the Landlords violated § 8-203 of the State Code, their conduct did not rise to the level of egregiousness or bad faith necessary to warrant the award of a penalty, and therefore, the Tenants request for a penalty was denied. The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,010.57, which sum represents the Tenants entire security deposit ($1,275.00) plus accrued interest ($76.50), less unpaid rent ($253.18), a return check fee ($25.00) and an unpaid water bill ($269.00), plus a rent refund in the amount of $206.25 based on the Landlords failure to repair the water heater in a timely manner.
Case
#:
13180, Unsworth v. Marchegiani The Landlord contends that: (1) the Tenant breached the lease by refusing to allow him and/or his workmen access to the Property to make repairs ordered by the Department; (2) most of the repairs ordered by the Department were to repair damage caused to the Property by the Tenant and her dogs; (3) the notice to vacate issued to the Tenant was not retaliatory, but was based on the Tenants refusal to allow him access to the Property to make repairs; (4) the Tenant failed to vacate the Property by February 28, 2002, and failed to pay February 2002 rent; (5) the Tenant vacated the Property on or about March 3, 2002; (6) the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and the charges assessed against her security deposit were for actual costs incurred to repair that damage; and (7) the repair costs and unpaid February 2002 rent plus late fee exceeded the amount of the Tenants security deposit plus accrued interest, and therefore, she is not due a refund. After holding a public hearing on September 18, 2002, the Commission found that the Landlord must pay the Tenant $500.00, which sum is for reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the Tenant as a result of the Landlords retaliatory conduct and notice to vacate. Due to damages done to the Property by the Tenant that were beyond normal wear and tear and non-payment of rent, the Tenants request for the refund of her security deposit plus interest is denied. However, any future claim by the Landlord against the Tenant arising from her tenancy at the Property is limited to $367.70, the total amount of damages that exceeded the amount of the Tenants security deposit plus interest. Case #:
24431, Gilsenan v. Dutton Specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent improperly and unreasonably assessed against her security deposit: (1) the cost to replace an exterior light fixture ($31.42), an item that she did not damage and an item that the Respondent is obligated to repair and maintain; (2) the cost to replace a non-working garbage disposal ($52.49), which was a condition that existed prior to her tenancy; and (3) plumbing costs ($121.00) allegedly due to a clogged drain which she did not cause and which is the Respondents obligation to repair and maintain. After holding a public hearing on October 30, 2002, the Commission found that: the Complainant did not damage the exterior light fixture; (2) the Complainant did not damage the garbage disposal in the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; and (3) the Complainant did not cause a plumbing problem or clogged pipe in the Condominium during her tenancy. The Commission finds that the Respondent wrongfully withheld $204.91 from the Complainants security deposit for damage to the Property that was not caused by the Complainant and was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant $204.91, which sum represents the disputed amount withheld from the Complainants security deposit plus accrued interest. However, the Commission finds that there is no evidence that the withholding was egregious or in bad faith and the Complainants request for a threefold penalty of the withheld amount of her security deposit is hereby denied. The Complainants request for reimbursement of attorneys fees related to her claim is denied because there was no finding of retaliatory or illegal eviction.
Case
#:
13288, Patricia John, et al. vs. Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo After holding a public hearing on September 3, 2002, which Mbakpuo failed to attend, the Commission found that: (1) the Johns responded to an ad Mbakpuo placed in the Washington Post newspaper offering the Condominium for rent, and subsequently paid Mbakpuo a total of $2,570.00 for rent, a condominium fee, application fees and a security deposit for the proposed rental of the Condominium; (2) at the time Mbakpuo attempted to rent the Condominium to the Johns and accepted their $2,570.00, the Rental Facility License for the Condominium had been revoked by the Department, the revocation had been affirmed by the Commission, and the Condominium had been condemned by the Department as unfit for human habitation; (3) once they learned the above facts, the Johns were within their rights when they decided not to take possession of the Condominium; (4) although the Johns made numerous requests to Mbakpuo for the return of all monies paid, Mbakpuo failed to respond or issue them a refund of any portion of the $2,570.00 paid, and (5) Mbakpuos actions constituted a violation of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations, of the Montgomery County Code, and caused a defective tenancy. As a result, the Commission ordered Mbakpuo to pay the Johns $2,570.00, which sum represented all monies they paid to Mbakpuo regarding the attempted illegal rental of the Condominium.
Case #:
12738, Tucker and Gray-Tucker vs. Koenick After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Tenants did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (2) the Landlord did not provide the Tenants an itemized list of damages within forty-five days after the termination of their tenancy; (3) the Landlords failure to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within forty-five days has caused a defective tenancy; (4) the Landlords assessment of damages against the Tenants for damage that was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, in violation of § 8-203 (f)(1) of the State Code caused a defective tenancy; (5) the Landlords failure to credit the Tenants security deposit with accrued interest, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the State Code makes the Landlord subject to a potential penalty of three times the withheld amount; and (7) although the Landlord violated the provisions of § 8-203 of the State Code, she has no prior history of wrongful withholding of security deposits and her behavior was not egregious or in bad faith; therefore the Tenants request for a threefold penalty was denied. The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,920.00. This amount represents the remainder of the Tenants security deposit ($1,800.00) plus accrued interest ($120.00).
Case
#:
11930, Ellison vs. Ogbonna After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Landlord began substantial renovations on the Property before the termination of the Tenants tenancy, denying the Tenant the opportunity to clean and make any necessary repairs; (2) by taking possession of the Property and starting major renovations before the termination of the Tenants tenancy, the Commission finds that the Tenant did not damage to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (3) the Landlord did not provide any credible evidence that she sent the Tenant by first class mail, an itemized list of damages assessed against the security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred within forty-five days after the termination of the Tenants tenancy; (4) the Landlords failure to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages within forty-five days has caused a defective tenancy; (5) the Landlords assessment of damages against the Tenant for damage that was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy; (6) the Landlords failure to credit the Tenants security deposit with accrued interest, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the State Code makes the Landlord subject to a penalty of three times the withheld amount; and (7) although the Landlord violated the provisions of § 8-203 of the State Code, she has no prior history of wrongful withholding of security deposits and her behavior was not egregious or in bad faith; therefore the Tenants request for a threefold penalty was denied. The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,534.50. This amount represents the Tenants entire security deposit ($1,395.00) plus accrued interest ($139.50).
Case
#:
11783, Waters-Sherrod vs. Kushawaha The Tenant’s request for a threefold penalty was denied. Any future claim by the Landlords against the Tenant arising from and out of her tenancy is limited to $5.55, the total amount of damages that exceeded the amount of the security deposit plus interest. The Landlords must immediately and hereafter fully comply with any and all notices of violation issued by the Department or HOC. For the next two years the Landlords, prior to use or issuance, must submit all lease agreements, notices to vacate and security deposit dispositions for all rental facilities they own within Montgomery County to the Department for review and approval.
Case #:
12125,
Keene v. Pantalone The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $994.00. This amount represents the Tenants’ entire security deposit ($850.00) plus accrued interest ($119.00).
Case
#:
11961, Berk v. Vassilas After determining that the complaint was not susceptible to conciliation, the
Commission scheduled a public hearing. The
public hearing commenced on On May 21, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order in which it determined that: (1) the Landlord and Tenant signed a 7 ˝- month lease agreement which commenced on November 15, 2000 and expired on June 30, 2001 for $1,900.00 per month; (2) the Landlord failed to offer the Tenant a 2-year lease as required by Section 29-26(a) of the County Code; (3) the Landlord offered the Tenant a one-year lease in April 2001 for a monthly rent of $2,200.00 per month and told the Tenant he would have to move at the expiration of the original lease if he failed to sign the new lease; (4) the Landlord’ failure to offer the Tenant a 2-year lease as required by the County Code created a defective tenancy; (5) the Tenant was damaged in the amount of $300.00 per month from June through November 2001 for a total of $1,800.00; (6) the Tenant did not comply with the provisions of the lease agreement which required him to get prior approval from the Landlord before ordering repairs; (7) the repair of the furnace was not an emergency requiring immediate remedy. The Tenants’ request for reimbursement of the $541.00 he spent to repair the furnace was denied.
Case
#:
11842, Maass-Moreno, Maass v. Decker, et al. Subsequently, the Tenants amended their complaint to request an award of three times the amount withheld from their security deposit, based on the Landlords’ unreasonable withholding of a portion of their security deposit.
After determining that the complaint was not susceptible to conciliation, the
Commission scheduled a public hearing for On April 18, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order in which it determined that: (1) the Tenants issued proper written notice to the Landlord of their intention to vacate the Property; (2) the Tenants vacated the Property on May 14, 2001, having paid rent in full to the Landlord through June 30, 2001, and returned the Property keys to the Landlord on May 14, 2001; (3) the Tenants left the Property in a clean condition with no damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear at the time they vacated; (4) the Landlord did not produce any credible, reliable or persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the Property was not left in clean condition; (5) the withholding of $185.00 from the Tenants’ security deposit when no damages beyond normal wear and tear had been caused to the Property constituted a violation of § 8-203(f)(1) and (2) of the State Code, and had caused a defective tenancy. The Tenants’ request for a penalty of up to threefold the withheld amount of the security deposit was denied. The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $185.00, which sum represents the amount that was improperly withheld from the Tenants’ security deposit.
Case #:
11957, Finau, et al. v. Hoage, et al.
After determining that the complaint was not susceptible to conciliation, the
Commission scheduled a public hearing for On April 12, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order in which it determined that: (1) the Tenants issued proper written notice to the Landlord of their intention to vacate the Property; (2) the Tenants vacated the Property on July 21, 2001, having paid rent in full to the Landlord through July 31, 2001, and returned the Property keys to the Landlord on July 22, 2001; (3) the Tenants did not unreasonably deny access to the Landlord during normal business hours to show the Property to prospective new tenants; (4) the Tenants did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of their tenancy, and they left it in a clean and sanitary condition at the time they vacated; (5) a final walkthrough inspection of the Property was conducted on August 2, 2001, at which time the Landlord did not advise the Tenants of any damage in the Property, other than the gutters might need cleaning; (6) the Landlord overpaid the Tenants interest on their security deposit in the amount of $10.61; (7) the withholding of $716.38 from the Tenants’ security deposit when no damages beyond normal wear and tear had been caused to the Property and no breach of lease had occurred, constituted a violation of § 8-203(f)(1) and (2) of the State Code, and had caused a defective tenancy; and (8) the Landlord’s withholding of $716.38 from the Tenants’ security deposit was willful, egregious, unreasonable and in bad faith, and therefore, pursuant to § 8-203(e)(4) of the State Code, the Landlord was liable for a penalty of up to threefold the withheld amount of the security deposit. The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,149.14, which sum represents three times the amount that was improperly and unreasonably withheld by her from the Tenants’ security deposit.
Case
#:
10793, Cleary v. Broyhill After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that the Landlord did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages within 45 days as required by State law. However, the Commission found that the charges the Landlord assessed against the Tenants’ security deposit were for normal turnover or redecoration expenses to prepare for re-rental of the Property. It was determined that the Landlord was responsible for these costs. The Commission found that the Landlord did not produce any persuasive testimony or evidence that the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of the Tenants’ tenancy. Accordingly, the charges assessed against the security deposit were unjustified and disallowed. The Commission also found that the Tenant failed to produce any persuasive testimony or evidence that the Landlord failed to make timely repairs to the plumbing system or that any action on the part of the Landlord caused the Tenants to pay excessive water charges. Case #:
10591, Prakash & Richman v. Burkett After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Landlord's failure to present the property at the commencement of the tenancy, in clean, safe and sanitary condition constitutes a substantial breach of the lease agreement and created a defective tenancy; (2) the Landlord only charged the Tenants a security deposit of $2,600.00, the equivalent of two months' rent, which is not a violation of the law; (3) there was not sufficient evidence or testimony regarding the Landlord's occupancy of a basement apartment at the property so no findings are made regarding this allegation; and (4) the Landlord failed to handle and dispose of the security deposit in accordance with the law caused a defective tenancy. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $2,600.00 which sum represents the Tenants' security deposit. Since the tenancy lasted only one month, no interest was accrued.
Case #:
10609,
Harris & Linderman v. Ross After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that the Landlords did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages within 45 days as required by State law. However, the Commission found that the Landlords assessed charges in the amount of $500.00 against the Tenants' security deposit for cleaning and yard work that was not beyond normal wear and tear. Therefore, this charge of $500.00 was not justified. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlords to pay the Tenants $500.00, which sum represents the Tenants' security deposit ($1,400.00 plus $56.00 accrued interest less $956.00 already refunded). Case #:
10754,
Gerdes/Larsen
v. Bell After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord failed to issue the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy. The Landlord failed to credit the Tenants' security deposit with accrued interest on the security deposit. The Landlord, without a legal or factual basis, charged the Tenants for repairs that were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear. As a result of the Landlord's failure to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, the Landlord forfeited the right to withhold any of the Tenants' security deposit plus accrued interest. The Commission also found that the Landlord's withholding of the Tenants' security deposit was willful, unreasonable and egregious. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,820.-- which sum represents the Tenants' security deposit ($875.00) plus accrued interest ($35.00), plus a $910 penalty. Case #:
10563 ,
Fastman v. Meyer After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that the Landlord assessed unjust charges in the amount of $652.84 against the tenant's security deposit. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $435.27, which sum represents the Tenant's security deposit ($1,930 plus $111.90 in interest) less damages unjustly withheld in the amount of $1,606.63. Case #:
10585, Randall v.
Murray After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord failed to issue the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy. The Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with accrued interest of $87.00. The Landlord, without a legal or factual basis, charged the Tenant for repairs in the amount of $967.05. As a result of the Landlord’s failure to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, the Landlord forfeited the right to withhold any of the Tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest. The Commission also found that the Landlord’s withholding of $967.05 from the Tenant’s security deposit was without reasonable basis, explanation or excuse. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,937.00 which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($1,450.00) plus accrued interest ($87.00), plus a $400.00 penalty. Case #:
10383, Rodriguez v.
Edwards After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord did return the Tenant’s accrued interest of $228.00 on October 31, 2000; the Landlord, without a reasonable basis, charged the Tenants $1,466.42 for the replacement of the exterior HVAC unit; and the Landlord failed to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy. The Commission also found that the Landlord’s withholding of $1,466.42 from the Tenants’ security deposit was willful, unreasonable and egregious. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $3,122.69 which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($3,100.00) less the amount previously refunded ($1,443.73), which equals $1,656.27, plus a one-fold penalty of $1,466.42, the amount unreasonably withheld by the Landlord for repair of the HVAC unit. Case #:
10126, Estelle Terese Odom v. Brenda
Morris After the Department investigated the Tenant's complaint, the Landlord returned the Tenants security deposit of $260.00 on October 24, 2000, but failed to return the accrued interest. The Landlord owes the Tenant $57.20 in accrued interest, calculated from the date the Landlord received the security deposit (01/01/1995) through the date the security deposit was returned (10/24/2000). The Commission found that the Landlord's failure to return this $57.20 was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $228.80 which sum represents the accrued interest on the Tenant’s security deposit ($57.20) plus a three-fold penalty of $171.60. The Commission also ordered the Landlord to submit a Rental Facility License application along with all required fees within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order. Case #:
10283, Jerome J. Mullin v. Robin Schafer-Swarm The Landlord assessed unjust charges against the Tenant's security deposit in the amount of $460.36 after the termination of his tenancy. The Commission found that the Landlord's failure to return this $460.36 was unreasonable. In addition, the commission also found that the landlord's failure to pay accrued interest on the security deposit ($76.50) was also unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,073.72 which sum represents that portion of the tenant's security deposit plus accrued interest that was unjustly withheld ($536.86) plus a one fold penalty of $536.86. Case #:
10419, Marion WhiteThomas v
Scotland Community Development, Inc. Case #:
10510, Cynthia Ballou
Lerner v Robert and Ellen Sehgal The Landlord assessed unjust charges against the Tenant's security deposit in the amount of $747.00 after the termination of her tenancy. In addition, the Commission found that the Landlord's attempt to assess charges for the repainting of the property in preparation for putting the property on the market caused a defective tenancy in violation of the state security deposit law. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $747.00 which sum represents that portion of the tenant's security deposit plus accrued interest that was unjustly withheld. Case #:
9905, Myrtis Robinson
v. Ann and Michael McCartin After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord had withheld $75.00 from the security deposit without proper justification. In addition, the Commission awarded 4% simple interest on the amount improperly withheld for the 18 months since the termination of the tenancy. Total awarded to the Tenant was: $75.83. The Commission denied the Tenant’s claim for threefold damages. Case #:
10282, Darlene
Stuart v. Nostrallah Jadali After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The landlord failed to refund any portion of the Tenant’s security deposit ($1,000.00) plus accrued interest ($60.00) within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy; the Landlord overcharged the Tenant $240.00 in rent, in violation of HOC and HUD regulations; and, the Landlord must reimburse the Tenant $95.00 for a plumbing repair that was the Landlord’s responsibility. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The notices of rent increase issued to the Tenant were defective, failed to comply with applicable provisions of the Lease, Lease Addenda, HUD and HOC regulations and Chapter 29 of the County Code; The Landlord was responsible for the repair of the leaking faucet in the bathroom tub in the Property. The Landlord authorized the Tenant to make the repair and agreed to reimburse her for the cost of that repair, which was $95.00, but failed to do so; The Landlord failed to issue the Tenant an itemized list of damages he was claiming against her security deposit, together with a statement of actual costs incurred, within forty-five (45) days after termination of the Complainant’s tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (g)(1) of the State Code; The Landlord failed to refund any portion of the Tenant’s security deposit plus interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; and, The Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 8-203 of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy. Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,895.00, which sum represents the Tenant’s entire security deposit plus accrued interest, the rent increase overcharge, reimbursement for a plumbing repair and a penalty of $500.00 for his failure to dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in accordance with the requirements of Section 8-203 of the State Code.
Case #:
10066, David & Corrie Bridgman v. Minh Vu Hoang After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord failed to refund any portion of the Tenants’ $5,980.00
security deposit plus accrued interest ($239.00) within forty-five (45) days after the
termination of their tenancy; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Tenants did not damage the rental property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a
result of their tenancy;
Case #:
10106,
Wayne Nordberg and Helen Knight Griffin v. John Hallman After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: The Landlord failed to issue the Tenants an itemized list of damages he was claiming against their security deposit, together with a statement of actual costs incurred, within thirty (30) days after termination of the Complainants’ tenancy., in violation of § 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to § 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code, the Landlord has forfeited his right to withhold any part of the security deposit for damages. The Landlord assessed unpaid rent, in the amount of $350.00 for the period September 1-15, 1999, against the security deposit when no rent was owed by the Complainants for that period of time based on the Lease termination date of August 31, 1999. Paragraph 26 of the Lease states: "Landlord may enter the premises at all reasonable hours, after 24 hours, or less if agreed by tenant , notice to tenant, to examine same, to make necessary repairs, and to protect any property from damage." The Landlord’s failure to issue the required notice prior to entering the Property constitutes a breach of Paragraph 26 of the Lease and a violation of Section 29-26(q) of the Montgomery County Code, which has also caused a defective tenancy. Based on the fact the tenants are no longer residing in the Property and their tenancy terminated, as of August 31, 1999, this issue is now moot. The Order: The Landlord to pay the Tenants $741.00, which sum represents a refund of their entire security deposit ($650.00) plus accrued interest ($91.00).
Case #:
9937, Rodney and
Paulette Duckett v. Louis and Tracey Dyer After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
The Order: On May 8, 2000, the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $461.40, which sum represents a refund of the balance of the Tenants' security deposit. Case #:
9887, Pauline Davis
v. Vikram and Vijay Kushawaha After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On April 21, 2000, the Commission dismissed Case No. 9887 with prejudice due to the Tenant’s failure to be present. Case #:
9943,
Franklin and Wanda Jimenez v. Ana Benitez After holding a public hearing, the commission found that:
On April 19, 2000, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $886.93, which sum represents the refund of their entire security deposit ($1,100.00) plus one year’s accrued simple interest ($44.00), less the amount previously refunded ($404.07), plus the amount paid by the Tenants to the Landlord for HOA fees ($147.00).
Case #:
9642,
Herman Jones v. Raj Tilak After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On April 10, 2000, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $207.09 which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($1,990.00) plus the correct amount of interest ($318.40) plus the credit for late fees ($100.50), plus the reimbursement for repairs ($157.00), less the amount previously refunded ($1,941.46) and the damages rightfully withheld ($417.35).
Case #:
9861,
Jennifer Shaw and Beth Liparulo v. Noel Connors After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On March 14, 2000, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,452.00, which sum represents a refund of the balance of the Tenants’ security deposit, $285.00, plus $78.00 accrued interest, plus threefold that amount, $1,089.00, as a penalty ($285.00 + $78.00 x 3 = $1,089.00) for violation of § 8-203 (f)(4) of the State Code.
Case #:
9597, Lorie Painter v. David and Linda Reiff After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:
On February 17, 2000 , the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay to the Tenant $965.10 which sum represents her overpayment of security deposit, $745.00, plus $170.10 which is the amount of her security deposit that the Landlord was lawfully permitted to collect ($1,350.00), less damages rightfully withheld from that amount ($1,179.90), plus a penalty of $50.00.
Case #:
9017, Jeff and
Deborah Noyes v. Frank and Audrey Martino After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On January 19, 2000, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,233.21 which sum represents the total amount withheld from the security deposit ($1,010.57), plus $33.00 unpaid interest, less $60.36 which the Commission determined the Landlords were entitled to withhold, plus a penalty of $250.00 pursuant to § 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code, which the Commission determines is warranted based upon the facts in this case.
Case #:
9923, Ricardo
Carbajal v. Felipe Garcia-Carrion and Norma Varisco de Garcia After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:
On January 19, 2000, the Commission ordered the following: The Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,248.00, which sum represents the refund of his entire security deposit ($1,200.00) plus one-year accrued simple interest in the amount of $48.00.
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,852.50, which sum represents the security deposit ($1,781.25) plus accrued interest ($71.25).
Case #:
9354, Helmut and
Martina Schweitzer v. Akhtar Azim After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On October 7, 1999, the Commission Ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $47.50, which sum represents the improper amount withheld from their security deposit. Case #:
9530, Celeste Batista v. Stephen Lee After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On August 24, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $594.00, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($1,000.00) plus accrued interest ($40.00) less the amount previously refunded ($446.00). Case #:
9221, Kathleen Urban v. Lewis and Susan
Winarsky After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:
On August 24, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,404.15, which sum represents threefold the amount of the security deposit ($550.00), plus accrued interest ($22.00), less the amount previously refunded ($105.13) and pro rata rent for 9 days ($162.72).
Case #:
9224, John T.
Opdahl v. Jennifer Bentson After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On August 23, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $826.80, which sum represents the Tenant’s entire security deposit (795.00) plus one year’s accrued interest (31.80). Case #:
6335, Martin and Elizabeth
Wetzler v. Glen and Carol Lamping After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On July 8, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,824.00, which sum represents threefold the Tenants’ security deposit (600.00) plus accrued interest (24.00). Case #:
9518, Teresa Thorne v. Ulysses Glee After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On July 6, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $432.81, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit (595.00) plus accrued interest (29.75) less pro rata rent for the period October 1-10, 1998 (191.94). Case #:
9477, Steven Bauman v. Laurie
Atkinson After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On June 24, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $$2,243.28, which sum represents the balance of the Tenant’s security deposit (2,157.00) plus accrued interest from March 8, 1998 through May 18, 1999, the date of the hearing (86.28). Case #:
9434, Belinda and Alan
Berning v. Felix Tong After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Tenants gave the Landlord proper 30-day notice to vacate the Property by July 31, 1998; (2) the Tenants then amended that notice and asked to vacate one day later, August 1, 1998; (3) the Landlord sent the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within two days of the 30 day requirement imposed by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code") and is therefore considered timely; (4) the Tenants accepted responsibility for damages totaling $320.00 at the hearing;
On June24, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $573.00, which sum represents the Tenant’s entire security deposit (1,500.00) plus accrued interest (3240.00) less $320.00 in damages admitted by the Complainants, $37.00 for August 1, 1998’s rent, and $810.00 already refunded. Case #:
4747, Dennis H. McCune v.
David Swanner After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On June 22, 1999, the Commission dismissed Case No. 4747, Dennis H. McCune v. David Swanner. Case #:
9090, Lisa and Tim Anderson v. Anil
Nigam After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On June 14, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants’ $395.50, which sum represents their entire security deposit ($1,425.00) plus accrued interest ($28.50) less the amount previously refunded ($1,058.00). Case #:
9128, Pedro Oordt and Ana Maria
Hurtado v. Erwin Gudelsky and Halpine View Joint Venture After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On May 25, 1999, the Commission ordered the Tenants to pay the Landlord $517.00, which sum represents a termination charge equaling one month’s rent (829.00) less their security deposit (300.00) plus accrued interest (12.00). Case #:
9508, James Kopkowski, et al v.
Dawn White After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On May 25, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,584.70, which sum represents the Tenant’s entire security deposit (1,495.00) plus accrued interest (89.70). Case #:
7788, Jane Van Ryan, Jordan Van Ryan
and Kara Davis v. Lewis I. Winarsky After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:
On May 6, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,740.00, which sum represents a refund of their entire security deposit ($685.00), plus a three-fold penalty ($2,055.00). Case #:
9013, Steven and Sharon Hancoff v.
Elwood Zimmerman After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
(10) the costs incurred by the Landlord (942.96) exceeds the amount in dispute (715.45), no defective tenancy exists. On June 15, 1999, the Commission dismissed Case No. 9013, Steve and Sharon Hancoff v. Elwood Zimmerman. Case #:
7367, Paramjit Singh Bawa v.
Golnar Ghalamkar Paksad After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On March 18, 1999, the Commission dismissed the Tenant’s complaint, finding that the Landlord did not cause a defective tenancy and did dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 of the State Code. Case #:
5669, Emmanuel and Eseroghene
Kuti v. Waldemar Berengeur After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:
On January 22, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $853.13, which sum represents the total security deposit ($850.00) plus accrued interest ($34.00) less the amount already refunded ($30.87). Case #:
8268, Carin Grunkemeyer and Holly Forbes
v. William and Elizabeth Heavey After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:
On January 19, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $762.75, which amount represents the balance of the Tenants’ security deposit wrongfully withheld ($712.50) plus 2% simple interest ($14.25) which accrued from June 1998 to the date of the Order. Case #:
4746, Gary Fogelman et. al v.
Karabet Ozbenian After holding a public hearing in this matter, the Commission found that:
On January 4, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,748.30, which sum represents their entire security deposit ($1,095.00) plus accrued interest ($153.30) and a $500.00 penalty for unreasonably withholding the security deposit. Case #:
5469, Kim and Robin Olson v. Steven
and Debbie Anzalone After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On December 10, 1998, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,122.49, which sum represents the refund of the entire security deposit ($2,100.00) plus accrued interest ($126.00) less the interest already refunded ($103.51). Case #:
4666, Leisha Bevoni and Laurie Hall v.
Ping Yu and Mei Han After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:
On December 7, 1998, the Commission ordered Yu and Han to pay the Tenants $107.60, which sum represents the total security deposit ($1,700.00) plus accrued interest ($102.00), less the amount already refunded ($1,341.49) and less the damages properly withheld by the Landlord ($352.91). Case #:
6065, Duncan and Arlene Glenday v. Dr.
Ali Rahimian After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:
On November 30, 1998, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,208.53, which sum represents a refund of their entire security deposit, $1,297.89, plus 6% accrued interest, $77.87 and a one-fold penalty of the withheld amount, $832.77. The Landlord initially forwarded $1,225.76 but declined to pay the penalty ordered by the Commission. Under threat of additional sanctions and penalties, including civil fines, the Landlord complied with the Order and paid the remaining $982.77. Case #:
5332, Natalya and Andrey Radul v. M.
Noel Connors After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On November 24, 1998, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $603.00, which amount represents the Tenants’ entire security deposit ($1,225.00) plus accrued interest ($49.00) less damages ($671.00). Case #:
6305, Alexis Sidwell and Jill
Luksic v. Chander and Ashima Kant After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,708.00, which sum represents a refund of the improperly withheld portion of their security deposit ($427.00) and a three-fold penalty ($1,281.00) for unreasonably withholding that amount from their security deposit. The Commission further ordered the Tenants to either return the Landlord’s check in the amount of $66.25 or refund to the Landlord the amount of $66.25. Case #:
4267, George and Regina Haritos v.
Brian and Joanne Fitzell After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
On August 12, 1998, the Commission declared the lease between the Landlord and Tenants null and void and ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $3,018.00, which sum represents the Tenants’ pro-rated rent, $133.00, their security deposit $1,375.00, their first month’s rent $1,375.00, $25.00 penalty for failing to properly receipt the security deposit, and simple interest of $110.00. Case #:
H-1172, Michelle Lynne Disse v. Roger E.
Herst After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,102.40, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($895.00) plus accrued interest from the date the Tenant moved in until the time of the hearing ($107.40) and a penalty of $100.00. Case #:
1504, Douglas & Terri Moorman v.
Merrily A. McGowan After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,425.00, which sum represents their security deposit ($1,300.00) plus three and one-half years’ simple interest ($182.00), minus $57.00, the cost of a one year maintenance contract for the heating system. Case #:
H-3722, Nadir Douaji, Norridine Chirchi v.
Jeffrey Kent The tenants sought immediate termination of their lease agreement and the immediate return of their security deposit in full. The Landlord alleged that: (1) most of the required/requested repairs were made;(2) the Tenants signed a lease to rent the property "as is"; and (3) he was under no obligation to return their deposit since they defaulted on the lease. After a public hearing was held, the Commission found that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,208.70 which sum represents their security deposit ($1,185.00) plus 11 months accrued simple interest ($23.70). The Landlord has filed an appeal with the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for judicial review but to date, this case has not been heard. Case #:
H-1404, William & Karen
Markley v. William M. McGovern
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $944.04, which sum represents their security deposit ($1,000.00) plus accrued interest ($88.00) less damages rightfully withheld ($143.96). Case #:
1226, Oliver Garraud
v. Jesus Lizarazo After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $2,535.90, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($1,185.00) plus three and one-half years’ simple interest, from the date the tenancy began until the date of the hearing, ($165.90), and a one-fold penalty of the amount of the security deposit ($1,185.00). Case #:
1370, Daphne Zweifel v. Britt
& Susan Rathbone After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $765.00, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($750.00) plus accrued interest ($15.00). The Commission did not feel that the withholding of this money by the Landlord was egregious and therefore no penalty was awarded. Case #:
H-1466, Gary Brown, Andrew
Clements, Christopher Nyberg and Matthew Sobocinski v. William P. Perry The Tenants sought: (1) immediate termination of their lease agreement; (2) a refund of their security deposit plus accrued interest; and, (3) an abatement of their rent based on the reduced amount of usable bedroom space as a result of the landlord’s failure to make required and requested repairs in a timely and workmanlike manner, which reduced the value of the Property. After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants the sum of $1,904.00, which sum represented the Tenants’ security deposit ($1,300) plus 2 years’ simple interest ($104) and a $500.00 penalty. Case #:
H-1349, Cynthia and Warren
Bush v. James B. and Christina D. Eaglin After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $625.66, which sum represents the Tenants’ security deposit ($1,100.00) plus accrued interest ($44.00), less the amount previously refunded ($518.34). Case #:
H-1506, Guy O. Stallworthy
and Sylvia Torres v. George and Susan Schneider After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,508.70, which sum represents the Tenants’ security deposit ($2,700) plus overpayment of March 1996 pro-rata rent ($6.20) minus damages rightfully withheld ($197.50). Case #:
T-12546, Sarmad Khawaja v.
Ann Ladden After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,852.50, which sum represents the security deposit ($1,781.25) plus accrued interest ($71.25). Case #:
H-1445, William L. Smith v.
David Weiss After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to refund the amount of $600.00 to the Tenant, which sum represents $400 for painting, $75 for caulking and $125 for deck cleaning (which the Landlord conceded was not owed). Case #:
H-1394, Darren & Shawn Malry v.
Maijid Danesh After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants the sum of $873.37, which sum represents Tenants’ security deposit ($895.00) plus accrued interest ($17.90) less damages rightfully withheld ($41.53). |
Copyright 2002-Montgomery County Government All Rights Reserved