Case #:  9354, Helmut and Martina Schweitzer v. Akhtar Azim
Issued:  October 7, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 9, 1998, Helmut and Martina Schweitzer, Tenants, filed a complaint against Akhtar Azim, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord: (1) failed to issue an itemized list of damages together with a statement of the cost actually incurred to correct such damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of the tenancy, and (2) assessed unjust charges against their $2,650.00 security deposit plus accrued interest.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. The Tenants were properly credited for the $105.00 Sears bill which was added to the amount Landlord indicated she owed the Tenant in calculating the reimbursement of the security deposit.
2. The Tenants failed to provide any probative evidence or testimony that the Landlord failed to properly maintain the Property during the term of the Lease.
3. Based on the improper notice of rent increase issued to the Tenants, the Landlord’s assessment of $47.50 in unpaid rent for the month of March 1998, constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  August 24, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On December 12, 1998, Celeste Batista, Tenant, filed a complaint against Stephen Lee, Landlord, in which she alleged the Landlord: (1) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; and (3) assessed unjust damages against her security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy at the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenant gave the Landlord proper notice to vacate, in accordance with the Lease;
2. the Tenant vacated on July 31, 1998, in accordance with her notice;
3. the Landlord did not send to the last known address of the Tenant, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code") and therefore he is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit, less damages rightfully withheld, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest per annum, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
6. the Landlord failed to obtain a rental facility license for the Property, in violation of Section 29-16(a) of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994 as amended ("County Code"); and
7. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code and failure to properly license the Property has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  August 24, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On July 10, 1998, Kathleen Urban, Tenant, filed a complaint alleging her former Landlord, Lewis and Susan Winarsky: (1) failed to give her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after she vacated the Property; (2) failed to return her security deposit within 45 days after she vacated the Property; and (3) assessed unjust damages against her security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy at the property.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:

1. the Tenant failed to give the Landlord 30 days' written notice to vacate as required by the lease, however the landlord acknowledged receipt of the Tenant’s verbal notice to vacate and extended the vacate date until May 10, 1998;
2. the Complainant vacated the Property on May 10, 1998, paying no rent for that period;
3. the Landlord re-rented the Property on May 10, 1998 and new tenants moved in on that date, therefore the Tenant owes pro rata rent for the period May 1-9, 1998;
4. the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear by removing and discarding the bedroom entrance door and the landlord incurred actual expense in the amount of $123.95, not the $165.90 the Landlord assessed against the Tenant’s security deposit. The Landlord's assessment of $165.90 constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) and (h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code");
5. the receipt for the Tenant’s security deposit contained in the lease does not contain language informing the Tenant of her right to receive a written list of existing damages from the Landlord at the commencement of her tenancy, and the procedure for requesting it, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code and the Landlord is therefore liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit, in compliance with Section 8-203(d) (2) of the State Code;
6. the lease does not contain language informing the Tenant of her right to be present for the final walk-through inspection of the Property and the procedure for making this request, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code and therefore, the Landlord has forfeited his right to withhold any part of the security deposit for damages;
7. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant , by first-class mail to her last known address, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, in violation of Section 8-230(h)(1) of the State Code and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code, the Landlord has forfeited the right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and
8. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code and Chapter 29 of the County Code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  August 23, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 9, 1998, John T. Opdahl, Tenant, filed a complaint against Jennifer Bentson, Landlord, in which he alleged the Landlord: (1) assessed unjust charges against them after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue him an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of his tenancy; and (3) failed to return his security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenant gave the Landlord proper 30 day notice to vacate the Property;
2. the Tenant did vacate the Property in accordance with that;
3. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of his tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code")and therefore she is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State;
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
6. the Landlord failed to obtain a rental facility license, in violation of Section 29-16 of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994, as amended ("County Code"); and
7. the Landlord’s failure to obtain a rental license and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in accordance with applicable provisions of the State security deposit law have caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  July 8, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On December 17, 1997, Martin and Elizabeth Wetzler, Tenants, filed a complaint against Glen and Carol Lamping, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: (1) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (3) failed to inform them of their rights under the security deposit law at the commencement of their tenancy; and (4) failed to offer them a two-year lease as required by Montgomery County law.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord gave the Tenants proper notice to vacate, in accordance with the Lease;
2. the Tenants vacated their unit October 31, 1997, in accordance with the landlord’s notice;
3. the Landlord did not send to the last known address of the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code") and therefore they are not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to provide the Tenants with their right to request a written list of existing damages and the procedure for making such a request, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code and therefore in accordance with Section 8-203(d)(2) of the State Code, they are liable to the Tenants for threefold the amount of the security deposit;
5. the Landlord failed to advise the Tenants of their right to be present for the final walk-through inspection and the procedure for requesting such an inspection, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State code and therefore, they forfeit the right to retain any portion of the Tenants' security deposit for damages;
6. the Landlord failed to offer the Tenants a 2-year lease,  as required by Section 29-26(a)(2) of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994 as amended ("County Code");
7. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest, which totaled $24.00, as required by Section 8-203(f)(1) and (4) of the State Code; and,
8. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code and Chapter 29 of the County Code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  July 6, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On December 11, 1998, Teresa Thorne, Tenant, filed a complaint against Ulysses Glee, Landlord, in which she alleged the Landlord: (1) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy; and (2) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenant gave the Landlord proper notice to vacate, in accordance with the Lease;
2. the Tenant vacated October 10, 1998, having paid September’s rent in full;
3. the Landlord did not send to the last known address of the Tenant, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code")and therefore he is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord is required to pay the Tenant simple interest in the amount of 5% per the provisions of the Lease;
5. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit, less damages rightfully withheld, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and
6. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  June 24, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 18, 1998, Steven Bauman, Tenant, filed a complaint against Laurie Atkinson, Landlord, in which he alleged the Landlord: (1) assessed unjust charges against them after the termination of his tenancy; (2) failed to return his security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy; and (3) failed to credit his security deposit with 4% simple interest per annum as required by State law.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenant and Landlord entered into a 36 month residential lease agreement with the understanding that the Tenant would also run a business out of the residence;
2. the Lease agreement was extended to a 60 month agreement by an addendum signed by both parties,
3. the Tenant gave the Landlord notice to prematurely terminate his lease due to circumstances beyond his control (heart attack), in accordance with Section 29-26(t) of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994, as amended ("County Code") and paragraph 33(a) of the Lease;
4. the Tenant vacated the Property before January 31, 1998, and a new tenant moved in February 1, 1998, therefore the Landlord did not incur any lost rent as a result of the Tenant’s premature termination of the Lease;
5. the Landlord returned $2,163.00 to the Tenant by letter postmarked May 1, 1998;
6. the Landlord assessed $1,837.00 in damages against the Tenant’s security deposit but failed to produce any documentation supporting these deductions;
7. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of his tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code")and therefore she is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code; and
8. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code and Section 29-26(t) of the county Code have caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  June 24, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 24, 1998, Belinda and Alan Berning, Tenants, filed a complaint against Felix Tong, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: (1) assessed unjust charges against them after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue him an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of his tenancy; and (3) failed to credit their security deposit with 4% simple interest per annum as required by State Law.

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;

1. the Landlord’s claim of $400.00 for damage to the kitchen floor caused by an unreported leak was not proven to be caused by the Tenants and is therefore not chargeable to the Tenants;
2. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
3. the Landlord failed to deposit the Tenants security deposit in a financial institution as required by Section 8-203(e) of the State Code; and
4. the Landlord’s failure to deposit the Tenants security deposit monies or credit their account with 4% simple interest as required by Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  June 22, 1999
Subject:  Condition of the Property at Move-In
Summary:  On August 6, 1997, Dennis H. McCune, Tenant, filed a complaint against David Swanner, Landlord, in which he alleged the Landlord 1) failed to deliver the Property to him in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the time he took possession; and 2) failed to refund his security deposit after he notified the Landlord of his intention not to take possession of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord did deliver the Property to the Complainant with deficiencies which included an unclean gas stove, that was not usable in its current condition and a musty odor emanating from a carpet on the porch addition to the Property;
2. the Tenant vacated the Property within four days of taking possession;
3. the deficiencies noted in number 1 were corrected after the Tenant vacated the Property;
4. the Tenant failed to provide sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate the Property was uninhabitable; and
5. the Tenant was not justified in breaking his lease agreement with the Landlord, therefore the withholding of the security deposit by the Landlord was justified.

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
Issued:  June 14, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 26, 1998, Lisa and Tim Anderson, Tenants, filed a complaint against David H. Saah, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: 1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit in the amount of $385.00 after the termination of their tenancy; 2) failed to refund the balance of their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants gave the Landlord verbal notice of their intention to vacate on or about May 26, 1998;
2. the Tenants vacated the Property on June 8, 1998, paying the June rent in full;
3. the Landlord, had constructive notice of the end of the tenancy and accepted it;
4. the Landlord withheld $385.00 for physical damages to the Property, not for any damages caused by a defective notice;
5. the Landlord failed to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred as required by Section 80-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 as amended ("State Code") and therefore forfeits his right to withhold any of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
6. the Landlord failed to return the Tenants security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and
7. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  May 25, 1999
Subject:  Early Termination of Lease for Cause
Summary:  On September 1, 1998, Pedro Oordt and Ana Maria Hurtado, Tenants, filed a complaint against Erwin Gudelsky and Halpine View Joint Venture, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord assessed unjust charges against them after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants gave the Landlord a 30 day notice to vacate on April 30, 1998 to be effective May 31, 1998 due to circumstances beyond their control;
2. the Landlord received this notice and requested documentation to verify the Tenants’ claim;
3. the Tenants gave the Landlord a letter from Tenant Hurtado’s employer verifying the termination of her job due to a reduction in force action;
4. the Tenants vacated on May 31, 1999, in accordance with their notice to vacate;
5. Landlord sent the Tenants an itemized list of damages, charging them$1,733.70 for replacement of carpet throughout the rental unit (874.70), cleaning the stove (30.00), and rent loss ($829.00);
6. the Tenants gave proper notice in accordance with ?Section 29-26(t) of the Montgomery County Code, Landlord-Tenant Relations, 1994, as amended ("County Code"), which permits termination of the Lease during the initial term due to unemployment or other reasonable cause beyond the tenants control;
7. the Lease provided that in the event of termination under this covenant, the tenant shall pay a termination charge of one month’s rent or actual damages sustained by the Landlord, whichever is the lesser amount; and
8. the Landlord’s testimony regarding the charges for replacement of carpet and cleaning the stove were not persuasive and the Commission was not convinced that these items were damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear. These charges were therefore disallowed.

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
Issued:  May 25, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 30, 1998, James Kopkowski, David Tucker and Ivan Duran, Tenants, filed a complaint against Dawn White, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: (1) assessed unjust charges against them after the termination of his tenancy; (2) failed to return his security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy; and (3) failed to return their security deposit plus interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord issued the Tenants a notice to vacate on the expiration of their Lease, August 31, 1998, which they complied with;
2. the Landlord sent the Tenants an itemized list of damages on October 2, 1998, beyond the 30 day limit required by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code") and therefore she is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
3. the Landlord failed to return any portion of the security deposit to the Tenants, claiming damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
4. the Tenants sought a three-fold penalty due to the landlord’s mishandling of their security deposit;
5. although the Landlord did not comply with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code, the basis on which she based her withholding was reasonable and no penalty will be granted; and
6. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  May 6, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On April 29, 1998, Jane Van Ryan, Jordan Van Ryan and Kara Davis, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging their former Landlord, Lewis I. Winarsky: (1) signed an Agreement with them that terminated their tenancy effective June 30, 1997 and stipulated the security deposit would be returned in accordance with all applicable; (2) failed to give them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after they vacated the Property; and (3) failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after they vacated the Property.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:

1. signed an Agreement with the Tenants which stipulated that only problems noted at the final walk through inspection, to be done on June 30, 1997, could be charged against the Tenants’ security deposit. The Landlord failed to appear at the final walk through or make arrangements for a representative to be present at the walk through;
2. the Landlord’s attorney faxed an itemized list of damages to the Tenants’ attorney on July 29, 1997, but did not, as specified by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code"), send a letter by first class mail to the last known address of the Tenant, which caused a defective tenancy;
3. signed an Agreement with the Tenant, which became an addendum to the lease and replaced Paragraph 15 of the lease. His failure to comply with the provisions of the Agreement by appearing at the final walk-through inspection preclude him from claiming any damages to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
4. failed to give the Tenant a written receipt for payment of the security deposit containing language informing them of their right to receive a written list of existing damages from the Landlord and the procedure for requesting it, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code and is therefore liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit, in compliance with Section 8-203(d) (2) of the State Code;
5. assessed the costs of repairs against the Tenants security deposit that were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, which is a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; and,
6. failed to refund any portion of the Tenants security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, which was both willful and unreasonable and constitutes an egregious violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code and renders the Landlord liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit as penalty;
7. signed an Agreement with the Tenants which stipulated that only problems noted at the final walk through inspection, to be done on June 30, 1997, could be charged against the Tenants’ security deposit. The Landlord failed to appear at the final walk through or make arrangements for a representative to be present at the walk through;
8. the Landlord’s attorney faxed an itemized list of damages to the Tenants’ attorney on July 29, 1997, but did not, as specified by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code"), send a letter by first class mail to the last known address of the Tenant, which caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  April 22, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 18, 1998, Steve and Sharon Hancoff, Tenants, filed a complaint against Elwood Zimmerman, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord: 1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; 2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy; and (3) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants vacated the Property on June 12, 1998, paying pro-rata rent through that date;
2. the Tenants did not return the keys to the Property until June 22, 1998;
3. the Landlord did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred on July 22, 1998, within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy, in compliance with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code");
4. the Landlord did incur costs of $100.00 to mow the lawn and $75.00 to repair a damaged electrical outlet, which he charged against the Tenants’ security deposit;
5. the Landlord did not show probative evidence that he incurred costs of $40.00 to haul trash or $83.75 for lawn clean-up after the tenants’ vacated and these charges were not allowed;
6. the Tenants became month-to-month tenants when they failed to vacate on May 31, 1999, in compliance with the notice to vacate. In accordance with Section 8-402(c) of the State Code, they owe rent for the remainder of the month of June, in the amount of $749.96,not just a portion of that month;
7. the Landlord did return $706.55 to the Complainants as the refund of their security deposit before the commencement of the hearing;
8. the Landlord credited the Tenant as security deposit with $72.00 interest when only $54.00 was due;
9. the Landlord did incur costs totaling $942.96 which exceeds the remainder of the security deposit plus interest (715.45); and

(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
Issued: March 18, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On March 27, 1998, Paramjit Singh Bawa, Tenant, filed a complaint against Golnar Ghalamkar Paksad, Landlord, in which he alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust damages against his security deposit after the termination of his tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord issued the Tenant a Notice to vacate on January 15, 1998, effective February 28, 1998, but the Tenant vacated on January 31, 1998, without paying the February 1998 rent;
2. because the Tenant abandoned the Property before the expiration of the notice to vacate, the Landlord was not required to send him a notice regarding the disposition of his security deposit until he submitted a written request, in accordance with Section 8-203(i) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"), which Paksad did on March 23, 1998;
3. the Tenant was liable for rent through the notice period and owes February 1998 rent in full plus a 5% late fee;
4. the amount the Tenant owed the Landlord for February 1998 rent ($900.00) plus 5% late fee ($45.00) exceeded Bawa’s security deposit ($900.00) plus accrued interest ($36.00); and,
5. the Landlord was justified in retaining the Tenant’s entire security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of his tenancy. The Commission declined hearing testimony regarding damages since the amount the Tenant owed for rent and the late fee exceeded the amount of his security deposit plus accrued interest.

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
Issued:  January 22, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 20, 1997, Emmanuel and Eseroghene Kuti, Tenants, filed a complaint against, Waldemar Berengeur, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; failed to send them an itemized list of damages within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy; and failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants gave the Landlord proper notice to vacate in accordance with the lease agreement;
2. the Landlord did not incur any cost to repair nor did the Tenant leave any damage to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
3. the Landlord’s withholding of the security deposit was a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
4. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code, and therefore pursuant to Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code, forfeits the right to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages;
5. the Landlord failed to return the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code;
6. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and
7. the Landlord failed to dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in accordance with the State Code.

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
Issued:  January 19, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On June 16, 1998, Carin Grunkemeyer and Holly Forbes, Tenants, filed a complaint against William and Elizabeth Heavey, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord assessed unjust damages against their security deposit in the amount of $712.50 and failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants gave a proper 60 day notice to vacate to on February 23, 1998;
2. the tenancy ended on May 31, 1998 as did the Tenants’ rent responsibility;
3. the Landlord was not justified in withholding $712.50 for rent from June 1-15, 1998, when the Property was vacant because the tenancy ended on May 31, 1998;
4. the Landlord refunded the correct amount of security deposit interest ($75.00) within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy;
5. the Landlord improperly assessed $712.50 against the Tenants’ security deposit for unpaid rent and late fees, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
6. the Landlord’s failure to return $712.50 to the Tenants, without reasonable basis, constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and,
7. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the security deposit in accordance with the State Code caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  January 13, 1999
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 6 and 7, 1997, Gary Fogelman, Bryan Nunes and Joseph Redmon, Tenants, filed a complaint against Karabet (Gary) Ozbenian, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy; and, failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing in this matter, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants vacated the Property May 31, 1997, by mutual agreement of the parties;
2. the Landlord failed to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
3. the Landlord failed to refund the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code, interest on the Tenants’ security deposit totaled $153.30 ($1,095.00 x 14%);
4. the Landlord offered no documentation other than his testimony to substantiate the withholding of the Tenants’ security deposit;
5. the Landlord, without reasonable basis, failed to return the Tenants’ security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code, and is liable for up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount as penalty; and,
6. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in accordance with Section 8-203 of the State Code created a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  December 10, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 3, 1997, Kim and Robin Olson, Tenants, filed a complaint against their former Landlord, Steven and Debbie Anzalone, in which they alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; and, failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord assessed unjust charges against the Tenants’ security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
2. the Landlord forfeited the right to withhold the Tenants’ security deposit for unpaid August rent because the Tenants had an oral agreement with the Landlord to vacate the Property one month before the expiration of the lease without financial penalty;
3. the Landlord failed to credit the proper amount of interest to the Tenants’ security deposit, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code, paying $103.51 instead of the required $126.00; and
4. the Landlord created a defective tenancy under Section 29-43(b) of the County Code by their violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code.

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
Issued:  December 7, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Sumamry:  On July 29, 1997, Leisha Bevoni and Laurie Hall, Tenants, filed a complaint against their former Landlord, Ping Yu and Mei Han, in which they alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust charges against their security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy and failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:

1. sent an itemized list to the Tenants within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy;
2. properly assessed the $155.00 paid for lawn service and gutter cleaning against the Tenants’ security deposit because, according the provisions of their lease agreement, they were wholly responsible for this maintenance;
3. was entitled to the $50.00 charged for a missing oak washstand and shoe stand;
4. was entitled to charge the Tenants $47.91 for the final gas bill, which the Tenants failed to pay;
5. only incurred a cost of $50.00 to repair the damaged dining room table;
6. was not entitled to the $25.00 charge for a credit check, which charge was unfounded and unsupported by any agreement between the parties;
7. failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with the proper amount of interest, in violation of Section 8-0203(f)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); and
8. created a defective tenancy by assessing unjust charges against the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest.

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
Issued:  November 30, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Subject:  On November 20, 1997, Duncan and Arlene Glenday, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging their former Landlord, Dr. Ali Rahimian (1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to give them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after they vacated the Property; and (3) failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after they vacated the Property.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:

1. sent the Tenants an itemized list of the damages claimed against their security deposit within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy, in compliance with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
2. failed to credit their security deposit with 4% simple interest per annum, as required by Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
3. failed to demonstrate that there was damage to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and therefore, the withholding of the security deposit violated Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; and
4. attempted to return $542.99 of the Tenant’s security deposit in December 1996, and that withholding the remainder of the security deposit plus interest ($832.77) was unreasonable and in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code.

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
Issued:  November 24, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Subject:  On July 26, 1997, Andrey and Natalya Radul, Tenants, filed a complaint against their former Landlord, M. Noel Connors, in which they alleged Connors agreed to allow them to terminate their lease prematurely without penalty; assessed unjust damages against their security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy; and failed to refund their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Tenants did not have an agreement with the Landlord to vacate the Property early without penalty and therefore the tenants breached the lease;
2. the Landlord did incur actual expenses of $360.00 to clean the carpet, $260.00 to repair screens, $48.00 to change the locks, and $3.00 for advertising;
3. the Landlord re-rented the unit 5 days after the Tenants vacated and gave the new tenants a $650.00 rent credit because of the cockroach infestation left by the Tenants;
4. the Landlord did send timely notice of the disposition of the Tenants’ security deposit;
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); and,
6. the Landlord caused a defective tenancy by failing to properly handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in accordance with the requirements of Section 8-203 of the State Code.

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
Issued:  November 16, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit, Retaliation
Summary:  On December 17, 1997, Alexis Sidwell and Jill Luksic, Tenants, filed a complaint against Chander and Ashima Kant, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust charges against their security deposit, in the amount of $427.00 after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Landlord failed to appear, or appoint anyone to appear on his behalf, after being properly notified and summoned to appear before the Commission;
2. the Tenants vacated on October 31, 1997, leaving the Property in satisfactory condition, as evidenced by the testimony of Inspector John Whitt, of the Division of Housing and Code Enforcement ("DHCE") and the Landlord’s agent, Art Hinton, who jointly conducted the final walkthrough inspection of the Property;
3. the Landlord assessed $24.00 in court costs against the Tenants’ security deposit but failed to provide any documentation that these costs were awarded by the court, in violation of Section 29-26(o) of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended ("County Code");
4. the Landlord charged the Tenants $159.00 for carpet cleaning and $244.00 for wall repairs, even though the inspection conducted by Inspector Whitt and the Landlord’s agent revealed no damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
5. DHCE informed the Landlord by letter dated December 18, 1998, that there was no evidence that the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear, therefore, the charges were disallowed;
6. the Landlord sent the Tenants a refund check in the amount of $66.55 after receiving this letter from DHCE;
7. the Landlord wrote the statement on the check for $66.55, "Cashing of this check by Jill Luksic and Alexis Sidwell means their agreement that they have no claim against Chander and Ashima Kant. However, Chander and Ashima Kant can still assert any or all claims against Jill Luksic and Alexis Sidwell.";
8. the Commission found that statement to be retaliatory and found the Landlord’s threats to pursue legal action against the Tenants for harassment to be retaliatory and in violation of Section 29-30B(b) of the County Code; and 9) the Landlord’s handling of the Tenants’ security deposit, in violation of Section 8-203 of the State Code caused a defective tenancy.

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
Issued:  August 12, 1998
Subject:  Condition of the Property at Move-In
Summary:  On June 25, 1997, George and Regina Haritos, Tenants, filed a complaint against Brian and Joanne Fitzell, Landlords, in which they alleged the Landlord 1) failed to deliver the Property to them in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the time they were scheduled to take possession; 2) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property prior to their scheduled move-in date; 3) failed to provide them with the lead paint disclosure required by State law; and, 4) failed to refund their security deposit and first month’s rent after they notified the Fitzells in writing of their intention not to take possession of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord failed to deliver the Property in a clean safe and sanitary condition, in violation of Section 29-26(n) of the County Code and the Tenants were justified in refusing to take possession of the Property;
2. the lease for the Property never became possessory, no present leasehold interest was created, and the Landlord was not entitled to rent;
3. the Landlord had no reasonable basis to withhold the Tenants’ security deposit and improperly disposed of it, in violation of Section 8-203 of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); and
4. the Landlord failed to give a proper receipt for the security deposit in violation of Section 8-203(a) of the State code.

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
Issued:  June 19, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 3, 1996, Michelle Lynne Disse, Tenant, filed a complaint against Roger E. Herst, Landlord, in which she alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to send her an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of her tenancy; (3) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy; and, (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Tenant gave proper notice to vacate the Property by May 31, 1996;
2. the Tenant provided the Landlord with her new telephone number and forwarding address by memorandum dated May 31, 1996;
3. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant a written list of damages claimed against her security deposit together with a statement of actual costs incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, ("State Code") and therefore forfeited the right to withhold any part of the security deposit for damages;
4. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
5. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and
6. the Landlord caused a defective tenancy by failing to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in accordance with the requirement of Section 8-203 of the State Code.

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
Issued:  June 19, 1998
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 1, 1996, Douglas & Terri Moorman, Tenants, filed a complaint against Merrily A. McGowan, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord (1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy; (3) failed to refund their entire security deposit within forty five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy; and (4) failed to refund two (2) years of simple interest which accrued on their security deposit.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages which they were deducting from the security deposit, as required by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code");
2. the Landlord failed to prove the damages assessed against the Tenants’ security deposit were in excess of ordinary wear and tear or that the costs deducted were actually incurred by the Landlord;
3. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest as required by Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and (4) the Landlord did prove that the Tenants failed to secure a contract for the heating system as required by the lease.

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
Issued:  May 11, 1998
Subject:  Condition of the Property at Move-In
Summary:  On May 9, 1997, Nadir Douaji and Norridine Chirchi, Tenants, filed a complaint against Jeffrey Kent, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord failed to provide the Property to them in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the commencement of their lease.

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:

1. the Landlord failed to correct several violations of Chapter 26, Housing and Building Maintenance Standards of the Montgomery County Code, 1996, as amended ("County Code") before the Tenants moved in, the most serious being a missing smoke detector outside the kitchen area;
2. while the Landlord did take steps to correct the deficiencies that existed at the Property, he failed to bring it up to habitable standards, despite having ample time to do so; and,
3. the Landlord failed to meet the standard in Section 29-26(n) of the County Code which requires that each lease for a rental facility located in Montgomery County must "contain a covenant that the landlord will deliver the leased premises and all common areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition, free of rodents and vermin and in complete compliance with all applicable laws."

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
Issued:  July 31, 1997
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 11, 1995, William and Karen Markley, Tenants, filed a complaint against William M. McGovern, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated code of Maryland ("State Code"); (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code; and, (3) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) and (g)(1) of the State Code.

1. After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:
2. although the Tenants gave oral notice to vacate, the Landlord, by his actions, acted as if it was written by scheduling the final walkthrough for the end of the month and, therefore, the tenancy terminated on the date given by the Tenants;
3. the Landlord failed to prove that the charges against the Tenants’ security deposit were for damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
4. the Landlord failed to prove that the repairs were made, with the exception of changing the front door lock ($95.00) and payment of the final WSSC bill ($48.96);
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with simple interest that accrued over 2 years and 11 months ($88.00); and,
6. the Landlord attempted to charge the Tenants for repairs he was responsible for making.

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
Issued:  July 29, 1997
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On April 17, 1996, Oliver Garraud, Tenant, filed a complaint against Jesus Lizarazo, Landlord, in which he alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust damages against his security deposit after the termination of his tenancy; (1) failed to send him an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of his tenancy; and, (2) failed to return his security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of the tenancy. The Tenant requested the return of his security deposit plus three-fold damages as penalty from the Landlord.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord’s testimony was inconsistent and that he altered certain documents in the record to reflect unsubstantiated damages;
2. the Landlord failed to send the tenant an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of his tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code");
3. the Landlord failed to return the tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) and (g)(1) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest as required by Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
5. the Landlord presented no evidence of costs actually incurred to make repairs to the Property or that any damage occurred as a result of the Tenant’s tenancy at the Property; and,
6. the Landlord’s withholding of the Tenant’s security deposit was unreasonable.

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
Issued:  July 24, 1997
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 23, 1996, Daphne Zweifel, Tenant, filed a complaint against Britt and Susan Rathbone, Landlord, in which she alleged that the Landlord failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy at the Property. Specifically, the Landlord withheld the Tenant’s deposit to pay for scratches on the wood floor after the current tenant vacated the Property. The Tenant requested three times the security deposit as penalty for the Landlord’s failure to return these monies.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the damages to the floor were hairline scratches and did not constitute damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
2. there was no proof that these scratches were caused by the Tenant because the Landlord entered the Property several times between August 1 and 13, 1995, to make alterations, after the Tenant had vacated;
3. the Landlord failed to make the repairs to the floor within thirty days after the Tenant vacated and had not, in fact, made the repairs at the time of the hearing; and,
4. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland.

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
Issued:  July 24, 1997
Subject:  Failure to Make Repairs, Security Deposit
Summary:  On December 22, 1995, Brown, Clements, Nyberg and Sobocinski, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging that their Landlord, Perry: (1) misrepresented the basement as bedroom space; (2) failed to make required, requested repairs to the furnace, which caused the Tenants’ to be without use of the furnace for an extended period of time; and, (3) failed to properly waterproof the basement which allowed it to leak constantly, causing damage to the tile floor along with the buildup of mildew in the basement.

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:

1. the Tenants’ tenancy had already terminated before the commencement of the hearing, thus terminating the lease was a moot issue;
2. the Landlord failed to advise the tenants of their right to be present during the final walkthrough inspection of the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code");
3. the Landlord failed to advise the Tenants of their right to receive a list of all existing damages to the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code;
4. the Landlord failed to present to the Tenants within thirty (30) days of the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages together with actual costs incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% interest, in the amount of $104.00, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and,
6. the Landlord, without reasonable basis, failed to return the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code for which the Commission awarded a penalty in the amount of $500.00;
7. although the Tenants did provide credible evidence of the Landlord’s failure to make required/requested repairs to the furnace and the leaking basement, they failed to demonstrate that they were damaged in any way by this; and,
8. the Tenants failed to provide credible evidence that the Landlord advertised the Property as a four bedroom house and therefore, the request for a rent rebate was denied.

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
Issued:  July 8, 1997
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On May 1, 1995, Warren and Cynthia Bush, Tenants, filed a complaint against James B. and Cynthia D. Eaglin, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord (1) failed to send them an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy; and, (2) failed to return their security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of the tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Landlord failed to inform the Tenants of their right to be present during the final walk through inspection and failed to notify the Tenants of the date and time of the final walk through inspection, therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"), they forfeit the right to withhold any of the security deposit for damages;
2. the Landlord did incur costs for damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear ($316.30) and for two late rent payments ($110.00);
3. the Landlord failed to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code and forfeited the right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and,
4. the Landlord did refund $518.34 of the Tenants’ security deposit.

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
Issued:  April 17, 1997
Subject:  Security Deposit, Failure to Make Repairs
Summary:  On February 22, 1996, Guy O. Stallworthy and Sylvia Torres, Tenants, filed a complaint against George and Susan Schneider, Landlord, in which they alleged the Landlord 1) failed to replace carpeting in the basement that was flood damaged; 2) applied mildew resistant chemicals to the carpet which adversely affected the Tenant’s asthma; 3) required unreasonable gutter cleaning; and, 4) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code").

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the damage to the basement was caused by severe weather conditions, not by negligence on the part of the Tenants;
2. the Tenants notified the Landlord promptly of the damage as required by the lease;
3. the Landlord failed to restore the carpet to its original condition following the flood;
4. the Landlord did incur expenses of $197.50 for damages to the Property, not associated with the basement flood;
5. the Landlord overcharged the Tenants $6.20 for pro-rata rent covering March 1-10, 1996;
6. the Tenants lived in the Property less than six months and are not entitled to any interest on their security deposit; and,
7. the Tenants did not incur any actual damages as a result of the damage caused by the flood.

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
Issued:  August 30, 1996
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 6, 1995, Sarmad Khawaja, Tenant, filed a complaint against Ann Ladden, Landlord, alleging that she failed to send her an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of her tenancy and failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) and (2) and 8-203(g)(1) and (2) of the Real Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland (State Code).

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Tenant gave proper notice to vacate and did vacate on the date given in her notice;
2. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within thirty days after the termination of her tenancy, as required by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
3. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest as required by Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and,
4. the Landlord failed to prove the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear.

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
Issued:  June 18, 1996
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 29, 1995, William L. Smith, Tenant, filed a complaint against David Weiss, Landlord, alleging that he assessed unjust charges against his security deposit after the termination of his tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

1. the Landlord did issue the Tenant an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of his tenancy in compliance with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code");
2. the Landlord did credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% interest, in compliance with Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
3. the Landlord failed to give credible evidence that the charge of $400 for wall repair which included spackling for excess nail holes and the charge of $75 for caulking the bathroom were in excess of ordinary wear and tear.

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
Issued:  June 17, 1996
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 30, 1995, Darren and Shawn Malry, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging that Maijid Danesh, Landlord, assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code").

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

1. the Landlord did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy at the Property, in compliance with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
2. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
3. the Landlord failed to provide credible evidence that the monies withheld from the Tenants’ security deposit were for damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear as required by Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; and,
4. the Landlord did incur damage in the amount of $41.53 for an unpaid water bill left by the Tenants, for which he is entitled to reimbursement.

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).