Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs
- Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs
- - Decisions and Orders
- - - Security Deposit Cases

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 #:  25714, Downing et al. v. Finlay
Date:  May 11, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, Heidi Downing, Julie Hussion, Megan McIntosh, and Heather Ward, filed a complaint claiming that their former landlord, James and Pamela Finlay: (1) assessed unjust charges against their $2,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; and (3) failed to refund any portion of their security deposit.

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.
Date:  February 11, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, Dennis McClune, filed a complaint alleging that his former landlords, Harold H. Huggins and Jeanne A. Huggins, Trustees of the Harold H. Huggins Revocable Trust, and Jeanne A. Huggins and Harold H. Huggins, Trustees of the Jeanne A. Huggins Revocable Trust, owners of the property ("Respondents"), and Harold H. Huggins, Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc.: (1) assessed unjust charges, in the amount of $952.28, against his $2,700.00 security deposit, after the termination of his tenancy; and (2) without a reasonable basis failed to refund $952.28 of his security deposit within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy.

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
Date:  October 13, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, former tenants Gary and Ella Masters, filed a complaint claiming that their former landlord, Respondent Lakshmi Mishra, assessed unjust charges in the amount of $1,300.00 against their $2,000.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy.

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 Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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
Date:  April 12, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, former tenants Haifeng (Sally) Shao and Marvin Ferger, filed a complaint claiming that their former landlord, Respondent Renay Weissman: (1) assessed unjust charges against their $1,850.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages claimed against the security deposit, together with a statement of the cost actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; (3) failed to refund any portion of the security deposit within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; and (4) failed to credit the security deposit with accrued interest.

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
Date:  April 20, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, former tenant Burnadette Nicholson, filed a complaint claiming that her former landlord, Respondent Sarwat Chandia : (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to issue her by first class mail an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, and therefore, the Respondent had forfeited the right to withhold any portion of her security deposit plus accrued interest for damages; (3) failed to pay her interest which had accrued on her security deposit; (4) failed to repair or replace a defective washing machine, in violation of Paragraph 9, “Maintenance,” of the lease agreement,  which necessitated her having to pay $49.99 for a service call and to rent a washing machine at cost of $400.48; and (5) failed to repair a leaking toilet which resulted in higher than normal water and sewer charges from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”).

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 Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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 Complainant’s 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:

1. The Respondent failed to repair or replace the washing machine in the Property after the Complainant properly reported that the washing machine was malfunctioning,  which constituted a violation of Paragraph 9, “Maintenance,” of the Lease, and Sections 29-30(4), “Obligations of Landlords,” and 29-32(a), “Reduction in service or equipment,” of the County Code; and therefore, pursuant to Section 29-43(b)(5) of the County Code, the Respondent was liable to the Complainant for the actual cost she incurred to attempt to repair the defective washing machine ($49.99) and the actual cost she incurred to rent a replacement washing machine ($400.48);

2. The Respondent failed to repair the water leak in the Property after it was properly reported by the Complainant, which constitutes a violation of Paragraph 9, “Maintenance,” of the Lease, Section 26-9 of Chapter 26, Housing and Building and Maintenance Standards, of the Montgomery County Code (“Housing Code”) and Section 29-30(4) of the County Code, which caused the Complainant to incur higher that normal WSSC bills.  The Commission concluded that the Complainant was only liable to the Respondent for water and sewer usage for the period December 17, 2003, through March 15, 2004, in the amount of $342.34.

3. The Respondent assessed against the Complainant’s security deposit the cost to repair damage that was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear ($1,083.00 to replace kitchen tiles, $545.00 to replace smoke alarms, and $690.00 to repair an entertainment center), the costs for repairs that were either never made ($135.00 to repair toilet paper holder and $672.00 to replace a window screen and repair the back of a built-in cabinet) or repairs for which no cost was actually incurred ($75.00 to replace towel bar), and the cost to replace items that could have been repaired but were replaced to enhance the value of the Property for re-sale ($1,500.00 for carpet replacement and $486.59 to replace the stove), which constitute violations of § 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code.

4. The Respondent failed to send to the Complainant a written list of damages together with a statement of the cost actually incurred to repair such damage within 45 days after the termination of the Complainant’s tenancy which constitutes a violation of  § 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code.  Furthermore, pursuant to § 8-203(g)(2) of the State Code, the Respondent had forfeited her right to withhold any part of the Complainant’s security deposit for damages.

5. The Respondent’s failure to credit the Complainant’s security deposit with accrued interest constitutes a violation of § 8-203(e) of the State, and has caused a defective tenancy.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $1,654.61, which sum represented the Complainant’s 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
Date:  March 7, 2005
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, former tenants Delmar Witcher and Donna Brooks, filed a complaint claiming that their former landlords, Respondents Brian W. Ulmer and Phuong K. Pham, (1) failed to be present for a final walk-through inspection of the Property (2) assessed unjust charges against their $3,850.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, and (3) without a reasonable basis, failed to refund any portion of their security deposit plus accrued interest, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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 attorney’s 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
Date:  January 11, 2005
Topic:  Security Deposit, Notice to Vacate
Summary:  A written month-to-month lease obligated the parties to give one month’s written notice of an intention to terminate the lease.  On November 29, 2002, the Tenant, Fraser, sent an Electronic Mail (E-mail) to the Landlords, Tubelis, advising them that he had decided not to renew the lease and that he would be vacating the Property; however, the Tenant’s E-mail did not state a specific termination date.  The Tenant paid December 2003 rent in full to the Landlords and vacated the Property as of December 31, 2003.  On January 30, 2003, the Landlords sent written notice to the Tenant advising him that he was liable for January, 2003 rent, and as a result, his $1,175.00 security deposit plus accrued interest would not be refunded.   The Complainant then filed a complaint with the Commission seeking a full refund of his security deposit.

Findings:  After conducting a public hearing, the Commission ruled that the Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s 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
Date: November 16, 2004
Topic:   Security Deposit
Summary:  On March 22, 2004, Andrea Pappas (“the Complainant”), former tenant at 1000 Dennis Avenue, Silver Spring, MD (“the Property”), a licensed single-family rental facility in Montgomery County, MD, filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs within the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, in which she alleged that Susan Grisso de Ortega and her sister, Kasia Grisso (“the Respondents”) owners of the Property at the time she vacated: (1) denied her the right to be present at a move-out inspection of the Property, in violation of § 8-203(f) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”); (2) without a reasonable basis failed to refund $1,642.50 of her security deposit within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(e) of the State Code; and (3) made unjustified deductions from her security deposit, in violation of § 8-203(g) of the State Code.

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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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
Date:  July 20, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit, Personal Appearances of Parties At Hearing
Summary of Complaint:  The Tenants filed a complaint claiming that the Landlord failed to send written notice, by first-class mail, within 45 days after they vacated the property, an itemized list of the deductions the Landlord was making from their security deposit together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair the damage.  They also claimed that the deductions made were for ordinary wear and tear and therefore not justified.  Finally, they claimed that the landlord failed to pay interest on the deposit.  The Landlord answered that he sent an email to the Tenants within 45 days after they vacated telling them he would withhold $200 from each Tenant’s security deposit and that he did refund the balance of the deposit not withheld.

Ruling on Motion to Dismiss:  At the hearing, the Landlord’s 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 Landlord’s 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 1^st-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 Landlord’s 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
Date:  June 22, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposits, Penalties, Attorney Fees
Summary:  Ana Montenegro (the “Complainant”), who was a tenant in a condominium owned by her landlord Thaddeus Tadkowski (the “Respondent”) filed a complaint alleging that he violated the Maryland Security Deposit Act by wrongly withholding her security deposit after she vacated the premises.  The Respondent claimed that the Complainant moved out prematurely and owed a month’s rent, and that she had caused property damages to the unit.

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 unit’s air conditioning was not working;  (3) June 4, 2003, the Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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 Complainant’s 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
Date:  June 22, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit

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
Date Issued:  May 27, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  The tenants, Gilbert and Juwane Fletcher complained that their landlord, Edward Blank failed to return their security deposit and made improper deductions from it, in violation of Section 8-203 (e), (f), and (g) of the Real Property Article of the Code of Maryland.  They also claimed they had requested to be present at a walk-through inspection but were denied permission by the landlord.  The landlord claimed that the tenants had damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and that the deductions made from the deposit were for actual costs needed to repair the unit; he also claimed he notified them of the time of the walk-through inspection but the tenants did not attend.

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 Commission’s 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.
Date Issued:  May 11, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit/Proof of Damages
Summary:  Abdivahim and Zahra Burrow (the “Complainants”) filed a formal complaint with OLTA against Somerset Development (the “Respondent”), claiming 1)  that after they moved out of the rented premises, the Respondent failed to return their security deposit within the 45 days required by law;  and  2) the Respondent made unjustified charges against their security deposit and failed to itemize the damages claimed, in violation of Section 8-203 (e) and (g) of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code.  The Respondent replied that the Complainants damaged the apartment in excess of ordinary wear and tear, that the damages exceeded the amount of the security deposit, and that the repairs were made by the Respondent’s employees so that no bills or invoices existed.  The Commission held a public hearing and took testimony and evidence from both parties, and allowed the Respondent to submit additional evidence for a limited period after the public hearing.

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
Date Issued:  April 1, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  Samy Gaalich (the “Complainant”) filed a complaint against Samie Garbout (the “Respondent”) claiming that he failed to return his security deposit and to itemize any deductions from it, within 45 days after termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203 of the Maryland Real Property Article.

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 Complainant’s 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 Respondent’s 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 month’s 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
Date Issued:  March 25, 2004
Subject:  Early Lease Termination by Military Personnel; Security deposit

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.

(Editor’s 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
Issued:  March 26, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  John Anderson (the “Complainant”) filed a complaint against Demetrius and Joanne Albanes (the “Respondents ”) claiming that: (1) the Respondents  failed to refund his security deposit, or to provide him with an itemized list of deductions within 45 days after his tenancy terminated;  (2) assessed improper charges against the security deposit, both in violation of Section 8-203 of the Maryland Real Property Article (the “State Code”); and : (3) he was owed a rent abatement of 2 days’ rent because of lack of heat.  The Respondents claimed that: (1) they sent proper notice by certified mail within the required 45 day period;  (2) all charges were for actual costs to repair excess wear and tear caused by the Complainant; and : (3) the lack of heat was fixed within 24 hours after the Respondents  received notice of the problem, so no rent reduction was due.

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.
Issued:  January 5, 2004
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On March 18, 2003, Elfrieda Allen (the “Complainant”) former tenant at 19018 Stedwick Drive, Montgomery Village, Maryland 20886 (the “Property”), filed a complaint with the Department in which she alleged that: 1) she did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear; (2) William Bibb, owner of the Property, and Charles Hayes, Hayes Real Estate Inc., agent for the owner (collectively hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”) charged her for damage that she did not cause or damages that were the Respondents’ obligation to repair and maintain; (3) the Respondents failed to deliver the carpeting in the Property to her at the commencement of her tenancy in a clean and sanitary condition; and, (4) the Respondents refused to reimburse her $200.00 which was the cost she incurred to dry and clean the carpet.  The Complainant amended her original complaint to request that the Commission award her three times the amount withheld from her security deposit as a penalty for the Respondents’ unreasonable withholding of that amount.

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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s security deposit for a portion of the WSSC bill that was not the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s security deposit plus accrued interest.

Although the Commission concluded that the Respondents wrongfully withheld $441.23 from the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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
Issued:  December 23, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On December 12, 2002, Linda Dianne Venable-Sullivan, (the “Complainant”), former tenant at 14574 Farmcrest Place, Silver Spring, Maryland (the “Property”), filed a formal complaint with the Department in which she alleged that Jon C. Grover (the “Respondent”), owner of the Property, assessed unjust charges against her $775.00 security deposit plus $167.91 accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy.

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 tenant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Respondent’s assessment against the Complainant’s 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 Respondent’s assessment against the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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

Overturned on Appeal by Circuit Court (July 13, 2004)

Issued:  October 8th, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 30, 2002, Tanya Johnson and Allyson Hendershot (the “Complainants”), prospective tenants for 2316 Colston Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (the “Property”), filed a formal complaint with the Department in which they alleged that Laurie Zivetz and Mark Mlawer (the “Respondents”), owners of the Property, failed to return any portion of their $1,595.00 Application Deposit and first month’s rent ($1,595.00) after they informed the Respondents of their intention not to sign a lease or take possession of the Property.

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 month’s 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 month’s 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 month’s 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 month’s 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).

Overturned on Appeal by Circuit Court (July 13, 2004)

Case #:  12489, Calaway v. Joshi
Issued:  August 14, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 27, 2001, Albert and Charlotta Calaway (the “Complainants”), filed a formal complaint with the Department in which they alleged that Surinder Joshi (the “Respondent”), owner of the Property: (1) without a reasonable basis, failed to return any portion of their security deposit ($3,300.00), plus accrued interest ($792.00) within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (3) raised their rent without giving them proper notice; and (4) failed to reimburse them for the costs they incurred ($778.00) to replace a faulty water heater the Respondent failed to maintain.

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 ½ % 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
Issued:  July 30, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On July 31, 2002, Basiru Jeng and Adam Gaye (the “Complainants”) filed a formal complaint with the Department in which they alleged Robert Kelly (the “Respondent”), owner of the Property: (1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy at the Property; (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; and (3) failed to refund their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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.
Issued:  May 20, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 24, 2002, Frances (nee Haaser) Murray (the “Complainant”) filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that Porter and Virginia Conerly (the “Respondents”), owners of the Property, and Respondents’ agent, Charles Hayes, Hayes Real Estate, Inc. (“Respondents’ Agent): assessed unjust damages against her $700.00 security deposit plus $112.00 accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy; and (2) failed to honor an agreement to reimburse her for plumbing repairs she made to the Property and for the purchase of a new refrigerator.

  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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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, “We’ve 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 Complainant’s question, “Do you recall telling me in any phone call not to let him [the Department’s 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 Department’s 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 landlord’s 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 Department’s 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.
Issued:  April 30, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On July 1, 2002, Andrew and Gayle Nadler (the “Complainants”) filed a formal complaint in which they alleged that Arthur and Patricia Hyder (the “Respondents”), and Mary Vaarwerk, President, Marydale Realty Management, Inc., (“Respondents’ Agent”), management agent for the Respondents:  (1) failed to refund any portion of their $2,100.00 security deposit plus $126.00 accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy and (2) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy.  The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to: (1) refund their entire $2,100.00 security deposit plus $126.00 accrued interest; (2) reimburse them for the cost they incurred to have to Property cleaned, $60.00, and to clean the carpets, $309.91, at the commencement of their tenancy; (3) reimburse them for the amount they were assessed to make plumbing repairs to the Property, which sum is $399.00; (4) based on the improper notice of rent increase, refund the overpayment of rent they paid to the Respondents for ten (10) months, which sum is $2,000.00; and (5) based on the Respondents’ unreasonable withholding of their entire security deposit plus accrued interest, the assessment of a threefold penalty of the withheld amount, which sum is $6,678.00, for a total award of $11,672.91.

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
Issued:  April 25, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 12, 2002, Jennifer Salkeld (“Complainant”), filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that Salah and Nina Moustafa (“Respondents”), owners of the Property: (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1)(i) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999 as amended (“State Code”); and (2) failed to reimburse her for improvements she made to the Property.  She later amended her complaint and requested an award of treble damages from the Respondents.  The Complainant asserted that: (1) the Property was left in a clean condition and not damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of her tenancy; and (2) Respondents unjustly charged her $750.00 for repairing walls and repainting in the Property.

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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Commission’s 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, Complainant’s 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:

1. Paragraph No. 11 at Findings of Fact was DELETED;

2. Paragraph No. 3 at Conclusions of Law was DELETED; and

3. The Order section now reads as follows:

“The Respondents must pay the Complainant $750.00, which sum represents the Complainant’s security deposit ($2,400.00), less the interest previously refunded ($144.00), less that portion of security deposit previously refunded ($1,400.00) and that portion of security deposit properly withheld ($250.00)”;

4. In the further subparagraphs of the Order section, the amount of $894.00 is replaced by the amount of $750.00; and,

5. All other Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the Commission’s April 22, 2003, Decision and Order in the matter of Jennifer Salkeld v. Salah and Nina Moustafa, relative to Case No. 24775, are unchanged.

Case #:  24775, Salkeld v. Moustafa
Issued:  April 22, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 12, 2002, Jennifer Salkeld (“Complainant”), filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that Salah and Nina Moustafa (“Respondents”), owners of the Property: (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1)(i) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999 as amended (“State Code”); and (2) failed to reimburse her for improvements she made to the Property.  She later amended her complaint and requested an award of treble damages from the Respondents.  The Complainant asserted that: (1) the Property was left in a clean condition and not damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of her tenancy; and (2) Respondents unjustly charged her $750.00 for repairing walls and repainting in the Property.

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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Commission’s 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, Complainant’s request for treble damages was DENIED.

Case #:  24442, Henningsen v. Schappell
Issued:  April 17, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On May 14, 2002, Christian and Patricia Henningsen (the “Complainants”), filed a formal complaint in which they alleged that Danny Schappell (the “Respondent”), owner of the Property, had them sign a lease agreement for the rental of the Property that: (1) allowed the Respondent to charge a late fee after the rent was five (5) days late; (2) provided for a 10% late fee which they allege they paid on several occasions; (3) reduced the amount of interest to accrue on their security deposit from 4% to 3%; and (4) provided for the assessment of $75.00 for each maintenance repair to the Property, all these provisions unenforceable because they contradict State and County statutes.

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 Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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:

1. Pursuant to Section 29-27(i) of the County Code, late fees cannot be assessed until the rent is at least 10 days late, not 5 days as stated in their lease;

2. Pursuant § 8-203(e) of the State Code, interest on their security deposit accrues at a rate of from 4% per annum, not 3% as stated in their lease;

3. Pursuant to Section 29-30(a)(3) of the County Code, that if they fail to perform required maintenance, they may be charged $50.00 for the actual cost incurred per maintenance item, not $75.00 as stated in their lease; and,

4. If they believe that they have paid any improper late fees or maintenance fees, they can file a complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs, 100 Maryland Avenue, 4^th Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20850.

Respondent must provide the Department with copies of all such notices sent to his tenants.

Case #:  13290, Garcia/Barreto v. Kushawaha
Issued:  February 27, 2003
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On March 28, 2002, Xavier Garcia and Jennifer Barreto (“Tenants”), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Vikram and Vijay Bala Kushawaha (“Landlords”), without a reasonable basis, failed to return any portion of their $1,275.00 security deposit plus $76.50 accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”).  At the public hearing, the Tenants requested that the Commission award them three times the amount of their security deposit as a penalty based on the Landlords’ unreasonable withholding of their entire security deposit.

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
Issued:  January 14, 2003
Subject:  Retaliatory Actions/Security Deposit
Summary:  On February 15, 2002, the Tenant filed a formal complaint with the Department in which she alleged that the Landlord: (1) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property during Tenant’s tenancy; (2) issued the Tenant notice to vacate in retaliation for complaints filed against the Landlord with the Department for failing to make repairs; (3) entered the Property without prior notice or the Tenant’s consent; and (4) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of her $3,190.00 security deposit plus $574.20 accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy.

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 Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s 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 attorney’s fees incurred by the Tenant as a result of the Landlord’s 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 Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s security deposit plus interest.

Case #:  24431, Gilsenan v. Dutton
Issued:  December 3, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On May 6, 2002, Maura Gilsenan (the “Complainant”), former tenant at 8910 16th Street, Silver Spring, Maryland (the “Condominium”), a then unlicensed condominium rental facility at Woodside Village Condominium (“Woodside Village”) in Montgomery County, Maryland, filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs within the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, (the “Department”) in which she alleged that Karen Dutton (the “Respondent”), owner of the Condominium, unreasonably withheld $204.91 from her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(e)(4) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”).

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 Respondent’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s request for a threefold penalty of the withheld amount of her security deposit is hereby denied.  The Complainant’s request for reimbursement of attorney’s 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
Date Issued:  October 11, 2002
Subject:  Revoked License/Condemned Unit
Summary:  On March 27, 2002, Patricia John and her daughter, Tricia John (“the Johns”), filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs within the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) seeking the return of $2,570.00 they paid to Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo (“Mbakpuo”) for the rental of 575 Thayer Avenue, #606, Silver Spring, Maryland (the “Condominium”), after the rental license for that unit had been revoked and the unit  had been condemned by the Department as unfit for human habitation.

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) Mbakpuo’s 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
Issued:  October 11, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On January 9, 2002, Stacy Tucker and Janice Gray-Tucker (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Judith Koenick (Landlord): (1) without a reasonable basis, failed to return $1,800.00 of their security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”); (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of  § 8-203 (g)(1) of the State Code; (3) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (f)(1) of the State Code; and (4) failed to credit their security deposit with $120.00 in interest, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the State Code. In addition, the Tenants were seeking an award of treble damage due to the wrongful withholding of their security deposit plus interest by the Landlord.

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 Landlord’s 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 Landlord’s 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 Landlord’s 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
Issued:  October 9, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 16, 2001, Kim Ellison (Tenant), filed a complaint in which she alleged that Rose Ogbonna (Landlord): (1) without a reasonable basis, failed to return any portion of her $1,395.00 security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”); (2) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (3) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and (4) failed to credit her security deposit with two and one-half years (2½) of simple interest, which sum is $139.50, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(1) of the State Code.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Landlord began substantial renovations on the Property before the termination of the Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s tenancy; (4) the Landlord’s 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 Landlord’s 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 Landlord’s failure to credit the Tenant’s 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 Tenant’s 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
Issued:  August 12, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:  (1) the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear and failed to pay the final water bill; (2) the Landlords did present a written list of damages claimed against the security deposit to the Tenant within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy, in compliance with § 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (3) the correct amount of interest is $52.00, not the $60.70 credited by the Landlords; (4) Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), not the Tenant, paid the monthly rent and any claim for a refund of rent must be filed by HOC; (5) the judgment the Landlords were awarded in a Tenant Holding Over suit from the District Court of Maryland contained an inappropriate award of legal fees and the $80.00 charge for attorney’s fees violates Chapter 29-26(o) of the County Code as it read prior to April 1, 2001, before amendment; (6) lease provisions regarding Tenant paying additional rent and attorney’s fees violates Chapter 29-27(m) of the County Code; and (7) the Landlord did not unreasonably or wrongfully withhold any portion of the Tenant’s security deposit plus interest.

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
Issued:  July 19, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to provide the Tenants a written receipt for their security deposit that contained language informing them of their rights pursuant to § 8-203, Security Deposits of the State Code; (2) the itemized list of damages forwarded to the Tenants after the termination of their tenancy did not contain a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage; (3) the Landlord’s failure to provide the Tenants with a written receipt for their security deposit which contained their rights under the provisions of § 8-203 of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy; (4) the Landlord’s failure to send the Tenants an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages has caused a defective tenancy; (5) due to the Landlord’s failure to comply with the provisions of § 8-203 of the State Code, he has forfeited his right to retain any portion of the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest for damages; and (6) although the Landlord violated the provisions of § 8-203 of the State Code, he has no prior history of wrongful withholding of security deposits and his behavior was not egregious or in bad faith; therefore the Tenants request for a penalty was denied.

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
Issued:  May 21, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 1, 2001, Anton Berk (the “Tenant”), current tenant at 5900 Sonoma Road, Bethesda, Maryland (the “Property”), a licensed single-family rental facility in Montgomery County, Maryland, filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs within the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, (the “Department”), in which he alleged that Anastasios and Vasilia Vassilas (the “Landlords”), owners of the Property: (1) increased his rent more than once in a 12-month period, from $1,900.00 to $2,200.00, in violation of Section 29-54(a), “Rent adjustments; notice requirements,” of the County Code.  On November 27, 2001, the Tenant amended his complaint, alleging that the Landlord failed to repair a malfunctioning furnace in November 2001, in violation of Section 29-30(a), “Obligations of landlords,” of the County Code; and failed to reimburse him for the cost he incurred to have the furnace repaired ($541.00).

After determining that the complaint was not susceptible to conciliation, the Commission scheduled a public hearing.  The public hearing commenced on April 25, 2002 and concluded on that date.

On May 21, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order in which it determined that:  (1) the Landlord and Tenant signed a 7 ½- 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.
Issued:  April 18, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On July 30, 2001, Roberto Maass-Moreno and Christine Maass (the “Tenants”), former tenants at 10406 Muir Place, Kensington, Maryland (the “Property”), filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs in which they alleged that Marydale Realty Management, Inc., Mary Vaarwerk, President (“Landlords’ Agent”), management agent for Keith J. and A. Eletheer Decker, owners of the Property (the “Landlord”), unreasonably withheld $185.00 from their $1,650.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of § 8-203, “Security deposits,” of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”).  The Landlord contended that: (1) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) the charges for gutter cleaning and house cleaning were actual costs they incurred as a result of the Tenants’ failure to clean before they vacated; and (3) all of the deductions made from the Tenants’ security deposit were justified.

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 December 13, 2001.  In response to a request by the Landlord, the public hearing was postponed, and a new hearing date was set for January 28, 2002.  The public hearing commenced on January 28, 2002 and concluded on that date.

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.
Issued:  April 12, 2002
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 14, 2001, Sione and Nadine Finau and John and Betty Crotty (the “Tenants”), former tenants at 10803 Stella Court, Kensington, Maryland (the “Property”), filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs in which they alleged that Rose A. Hoage (the “Landlord”), owner of the Property, assessed unjust damages, in the amount of $761.99, against their $1,990.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of  § 8-203 (f)(1)(i) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended (“State Code”).  The Landlord contended that: (1) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) the charge for one-half month’s rent was based on the Tenants’ refusal to allow them to show the Property to prospective new tenants; and (3) all of the damage deductions made from the Tenants’ security deposit were justifiable.   Subsequently, the Tenants amended their complaint to request an award three times the amount withheld from their security deposit, based on the Landlord’s unreasonable assessment of damages.

After determining that the complaint was not susceptible to conciliation, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for February 11, 2002.  However, based on a request by the Landlord, the public hearing was postponed, and a new hearing date was set for March 7, 2002.  The public hearing commenced on March 7, 2002, and concluded on that date.  Although she received proper notice of the hearing time and date, the Landlord failed to appear at the hearing, and no one else appeared on her behalf.

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
Issued:  October 3, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On October 10, 2000, Colin and Susan Cleary (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that H. Stephen Broyhill (Landlord): (1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit  ($1,950.00) plus accrued interest ($156.00) after the termination of their tenancy; (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (3) without reasonable basis, failed to return any portion of their security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy; (4) failed to credit their security deposit with 4% simple interest as required by State law; and (5) failed to make plumbing repairs promptly causing the Tenants to pay excessive water charges.

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.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,106.00.  This amount represents the Tenants’ entire security deposit ($1,950.00) plus accrued interest ($156.00).

Case #:  10591, Prakash & Richman v. Burkett
Issued:  July 30, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 7, 2000, Dave Prakash and Naomi Richman (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that John Burkett (Landlord): (1) failed to deliver the property at the commencement of the tenancy, in clean, safe and sanitary condition; (2) charged them a security deposit in excess of two months' rent; (3) misrepresented his intention to live at the property at the commencement of the tenancy; and (4) failed to return any portion of their security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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
Issued:  July 24, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On September 14, 2000, Oliver Harris and Laura Linderman (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Dale and Patti Ross (Landlords): (1) unreasonably withheld $500.00 from their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy and (2) failed to issue them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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
Issued:  April 23, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 20, 2000, Michael Gerdes and Melinda Larsen (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that John Bell, Esquire, (Landlord): (1) failed to conduct a final walkthrough inspection at the termination of their tenancy; (2) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit plus accrued interest, after the termination of their tenancy; and (3) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred within 45days after the termination of their tenancy.

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
Issued:  April 12, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 10, 2000, Ibrionke J. Fastman (Tenant), filed a complaint in which she alleged that Lynne Meyer (Landlord) (1) charged her for the repair of damages that existed at the property when she moved in in August 1998; (2) charged her for repairs that were not her responsibility; (3) failed to credit her security deposit with the correct amount of accrued interest; and (4) charged her for repairs that were made in preparation of the sale of the Property.

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
Issued:  April 3, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On August 17, 2000, Bryan and Lisa Randall (Tenant), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Leroy and Mae Murray (Landlord): (1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit plus accrued interest, after the termination of their tenancy; and (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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
Issued:  March 26, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On April 14, 2000, Eddy and Yorlenny Rodriguez (Tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Donald B. Edwards (Landlord): (1) assessed unjust damages against their security deposit plus accrued interest in the amount of $1,466.42, after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to pay them the interest that had accrued on their security deposit; and (3) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy.

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
Issued:  March 15, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On November 18, 1999, Estelle Terese Odom (Tenant), filed a complaint in which she alleged that Brenda Morris (Landlord) failed to return her security deposit ($260.00) plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy.  After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

After the Department investigated the Tenant's complaint, the Landlord returned the Tenant’s 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
Issued:  February 27, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On January 21, 2000, Jerome J. Mullin (Tenant), filed a complaint in which he alleged that Robin Schafer-Swarm (Landlord) assessed unjust charges against his security deposit after the termination of his tenancy and failed to pay him interest on his security deposit.  After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

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.
Issued:  January 30, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On May 10, 2000, Marion White-Thomas  former tenant at 7872 Scotland Drive, Rockville, MD, filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that Scotland Community Development, Inc., assessed unjust charges against her $520.00 security deposit after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of § 8-203 (e)(4) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1999, as amended. The Complainant, Marion White-Thomas, failed to appear at the public hearing as of 6:50 P.M. on Tuesday, January 23, 2001.  The case was dismissed.

Case #:  10510, Cynthia Ballou Lerner v Robert and Ellen Sehgal
Issued:  January 4, 2001
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary:  On July 19, 2000, Cynthia Ballou Lerner (Tenant), filed a complaint in which she alleged that Robert and Ellen Sehgal (Landlord) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy.  After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

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.