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 #: 28511, Ortiz-Molina and Sillimon v. 1601 Dale Drive LLC, Mitchell Herman
Date: July 7, 2008
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Elizabeth Ortiz-Molina and Cassius Sillimon (“Tenants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, 1601 Dale Drive LLC, Mitchell Herman (“Landlord”): (1) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $4,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (2) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit; (3) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and therefore had forfeited the right to withhold any part of their security deposit for damages; and (4) based on the unreasonable withholding of their security deposit, the Landlord was liable for a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount.

The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their entire $4,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest and a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount.

The Landlord contended that the Tenants: (1) failed to pay the last month’s rent; (2) damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; and (3) the amount of the unpaid rent and costs he incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Tenants’ security deposit plus interest.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenants failed to pay the Landlord the last month’s rent, in the amount of amount of $2,100.00, and a late fee in the amount of $105.00; (2) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the Landlord incurred actual expense to repair that damage in the amount of $2,121.00; (3) many of the costs assessed against the Complainants’ security deposit by the Landlord were unreasonable and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (e)(4) of the State Code; and (4) the Landlord’s unreasonable withholding did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty.

The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) although the Landlord attempted to withhold from the Tenants’ security deposit costs it incurred to repair damages that were either pre-existing, not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, or not the Complainants responsibility to repair, which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203, “Security deposits,” of the State Code, based on the amount of the Complainants’ security deposit ($4,200.00) plus the correct amount of accrued interest ($126.00), less unpaid rent and late fee ($2,205.00) and damages rightfully withheld ($2,121.00), the Landlord was within its right to withhold the entire amount of the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest; and, (2) the Tenants are not entitled to a refund of any portion of their security deposit plus accrued interest, and their request for a refund plus a penalty, was denied.

Case #: 29397, Paz v. Wotorson
Date: June 11, 2008
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Johanna Paz (“Tenant”), filed a complaint alleging that her former landlord, Evangeline Wotorson ("Landlord"), who is a realtor with Weichert Realtors in Montgomery County: (1) failed to refund any portion of her $1,700.00 security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, and (2) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and therefore, the Landlord had forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the deposit for damages.

The Tenant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund her entire $1,700.00 security deposit plus $102.00 accrued interest.

The Landlord contended that the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy and the costs she incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of the Tenant’s security deposit plus interest.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenant paid the Landlord a security deposit in the amount of $1,700.00 at the commencement of the tenancy; (2) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenant an itemized list of damages being claimed against the security deposit within 45 days after the termination of the tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord had forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and (3) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 2 year simple interest, which sum is $102.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code.

The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,802.00, which sum represented her entire security deposit ($1,700.00), plus accrued interest ($102.00).

The Landlord subsequently failed to comply with the Commission’s Order and failed to file an appeal to the Circuit Court. Enforcement action against the Landlord, Evangeline Wotorson, is pending.

Case #: 29031, Harkavey v. Nejaddehgan
Date: June 11, 2008
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Louise and Jon Harkavy (“Tenants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Mousa Nejaddehghan (“Landlord”): (1) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $5,200.00 security deposit plus accrued interest 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 those damages within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; and (3) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit to repair damages that were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear or that were not their responsibility to repair.

The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their $5,200.00 security deposit plus $494.00 accrued interest, plus a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount.

The Landlord contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the costs he incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest; and (2) he sent to the Complainants, to their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages claimed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Tenants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy, and the Landlord incurred actual expense, only in the amount of $450.00 to repair that damage; (2) the Landlord did send to the Tenants an itemized list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, as required by Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (3) the Landlord assessed against the Tenants’ security deposit the cost to repair damages that were either pre-existing, not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, not the Tenants’ responsibility to repair, or for which no cost was actually incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with simple interest which had accrued on their security deposit, which sum is $494.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; and (5) although the Commission found that the Landlord failed to handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the State security deposit law, it concluded that his conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty.

The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) the Landlord must pay the Tenant’s $5,244.00, which sum represented their security deposit ($5,200.00), plus accrued interest ($494.00), less the amount properly withheld for damages ($450.00; (2) the Tenants’ request for a penalty was denied; and (3) the Landlord apprise himself of the law and conform his business practices accordingly.

The Landlord subsequently complied with the Order and paid the Tenants the sum of $5,244.00.

Case #: 28766, Lester v. Marshall
Date: May 14, 2008
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Tennina Lester and Timothy Thomas (“Tenants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, James E. Marshall 2nd (“Landlord”): (1) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $1,975.00 security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

The Tenants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Landlord to refund their entire $1,975.00 security deposit plus $237.00 accrued interest, plus a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount.

The Landlord contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and the costs he incurred to repair that damage exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest; and (2) he sent to the Complainants, to their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages claimed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenants an itemized list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the Complainants’ security deposit for damages; (2) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with the correct amount of simple interest which had accrued on their security deposit, in the correct amount of $237.00, which constituted a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code; and (3) although the Commission found that the Landlord failed to handle and dispose of the Complainants’ security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the State security deposit law, it concluded that his conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty.

The Order: The Commission ordered that: (1) the Landlord must refund the Tenant’s $1,975.00 security deposit plus $237.00 accrued interest; (2) the Tenants’ request for a penalty was denied; and (3) the Landlord should apprise himself of the law and conform his business practices accordingly.

The Landlord subsequently appealed the Commission’s Decision and Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. This appeal is currently pending.

Case #: 28888, Castelo v. Morgan-Bailey
Date: January 15, 2008
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Teresa and Carmelito Castelo (“Tenants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Hyacinth Morgan-Bailey (“Landlord”): (1) assessed unjust charges against their $1,000.00 security deposit after the termination of their tenancy, (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair those damages within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and (3) failed to pay them interest which had accrued on their security deposit, which sum is $60.00.

The Landlord contended that: (1) she sent the required itemized list of damages to the Complainants at their last known address within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy; (2) the Complainants vacated owing unpaid rent; (3) the Complainants failed to pay her for furniture they purchased, in the amount of $500.00; and (4) the amount owed to her by the Complainants exceeded the amount of their security deposit plus interest.

The Tenants requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their $1,000.00 security deposit plus $60.00 interest.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to send to the Tenants a list of damages being claimed against their security deposit that contained an itemization of those charges, which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(g)(2), the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants’ security deposit for damages; (2) the failure by the Complainants to purchase or pay for items of furniture being sold by the Landlord, if such an agreement existed, does not constitute a breach of the Lease on the part of the Complainants or damage to the Property by the Complainants in excess of ordinary wear and tear, as defined in Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i) of the State Code; (3) the assessment of $425.00 claimed against the Complainants’ security deposit for an alleged failure to purchase or pay for furniture is disallowed; and (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with 6% simple interest ($60.00) which constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code.

The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to refund the Tenant’s $1,000.00 security deposit and $60.00 accrued interest. The Landlord subsequently paid the Tenants $1,060.00.

Case #: 28542 Facello and Gonzales v. Greenfeld
Date: October 3, 2007
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Fiorellla Facello and Francisco Gonzales (“Tenants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Brenda Greenfeld (“Landlord”): (1) assessed unjust charges, in the amount of $350.00, against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy for repairs that were either never made or that were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and (2) failed to pay them the correct amount of simple interest which had accrued on their security deposit.

The Landlord contended that: (1) it was not possible to remove the stain from the carpet and although she never replaced it, its value was reduced by $100.00, and (2) when she had the rental unit re-painted after the Tenants moved out, her painter had to apply an extra coat of paint to the areas that the Tenants re-painted with a deep orange/yellow color.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission that the Landlord pay them $361.51, which sum represented the $350.00 withheld from their security deposit plus $11.51 additional interest.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord did not incur any actual expense to repair or replace alleged carpet damage and therefore, her assessment of $100.00 against the Tenants’ security deposit was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; (2) the Tenants did not cause damage to the interior walls of the unit in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy and therefore, the Landlord’s assessment of $250.00 against the Tenants’ security deposit for additional painting was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i) of the State Code; (3) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with the correct amount of accrued interest, in violation of Section 8-203(e)(1) of the State Code. The Commission further found that the Tenants complied with the requirements of § 8-203(f)(1)(ii) and (iii) of the State Code regarding their request to be present for a final walkthrough inspection of the unit by notifying the Landlord by certified mail at least 15 days prior to the date they were moving of their intention to move, the date of moving, and their new address. However, the Landlord, who signed for and accepted delivery of the Tenants’ inspection request, failed to notify them by certified mail of the time and date when the Condominium was to be inspected within 5 days before or 5 days after the date of moving as designated in their notice, as required by Section 8-203 (f)(1)(iv) and (v) of the State Code, and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203 (f)(1)(vii) of the State Code, the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold any part of the Tenants’ security deposit for damages.

The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $361.51, which sum represented the amount withheld from their security deposit ($350.00), plus additional accrued interest ($11.51). The Landlord subsequently complied and paid the Tenants $361.51.

Case #: 28378, Johns v. Danesh
Date: Septerber 21, 2007
Subject: Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Avis Johns (“Tenant”) filed a complaint alleging that her former landlord, Majid Danesh (“Landlord”): (1) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of her $1,395.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy; (2) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy; and (3) failed to refund to her a rent credit of $195.45.

The Landlord contended that: (1) he had properly issued the Complainant an itemized list of damages within 45-days of the termination of her tenancy; and (2) the security deposit plus accrued interest and rent credit were properly withheld due to damage the Complainant caused to the Property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear and an unpaid utility bill.

The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire $1,395.00 security deposit and accrued interest in the amount of $20.93, plus a rent credit in the amount of $194.45.  In addition, the Complainant was seeking a penalty of up to threefold the unreasonably withheld amount of her security deposit plus accrued interest.

Findings: The Commission found that: (1) the Landlord failed to comply with the requirements of Section 8-203.1 of the State Code by providing the Tenant with a receipt for her payment of security deposit that advised her: (A) of her right to have the Property inspected for the purpose of making a written list of damages at the commencement of tenancy; (B) her right to be present when the Landlord inspected the Property at the end of the tenancy in order to determine if damage was done; and (C) that failure by the Landlord to comply with the requirements of § 8-203.1 could result in the Respondent being liable for a penalty of up to 3 times the amount of the security deposit withheld plus reasonable attorneys fees; (2) based on his failure to comply with Section 8-203.1 of the State Code, the Landlord had forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the Tenant’s security deposit for damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, or damage which was the result of a breach of the Lease; (3) the Landlord failed to substantiate that he incurred actual costs for many of the damages claimed against the Complainant’s security deposit, and the assessment of $1,842.77 against the security deposit to repair damage which was not established to be as a result of damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear or for which costs were not actually incurred, was disallowed and constituted a violation of Section 8-203 (f)(1)(i), (f)(2), and (g)(1) of the State Code.  The Tenant’s request for a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount of her security deposit was denied.

The Order: The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,610.38, which sum represented her security deposit ($1,395.00) plus accrued interest ($20.93), plus a rent credit ($194.45).

The Landlord subsequently filed an appeal of the Commission’s Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and filed suit against the Tenant in the District Court of Maryland for the same damages he claimed against her security deposit. The Landlord subsequently withdrew his appeal of the Commission’s Order in the Circuit Court, and the District Court subsequently dismissed his suit against the Complainant for damages based on the fact that the Commission had already fully adjudicated the matter.

Case #:  28618, Johnson v. Bestman-Johnson
Date:  November 27, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  India Johnson (“Tenant”), filed a complaint alleging that her former landlord, Gbomai Bestman-Johnson (“Landlord”): (1) failed to refund any portion of her $1,500.00 security deposit after she informed the Landlord, prior to taking possession of the rental Property, that due to Housing Opportunities Commission’s Choice Voucher Program maximum rental allowance, no tenancy would occur, and she would be unable to take possession of the Property at the commencement of the lease term.

The Landlord, who failed to appear at the hearing, contended that the Tenant breached the lease agreement by failing to take possession and therefore, she was entitled to retain the Tenant’s security deposit for unpaid rent.

The Tenant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her security deposit plus a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount.

Findings:  The Commission found that the Landlord: (1) failed to disclose to the Tenant in the lease the proper information regarding security deposits, as required by Section 8-203 of the State Code, and as a result, pursuant to Section 8-203(f)(vii) of the State Code, the Landlord forfeited her right to withhold any part of the Tenant’s security deposit for damages; (2) the Landlord had a duty to mitigate the damages created by the Tenant’s breach of lease and failure to take possession of the Property at the commencement of the lease term, including the obligation to attempt to re-rent the Property, but failed to do so, which constitutes a violation of Section 8-207(a)(2) of the State Code; (3) the Landlord failed to provide any documentation and information demonstrating her efforts to mitigate the damages created by the Tenant’s failure to take possession at the commencement of the Lease, or any attempts to re-let the Property after she was notified by the Tenant that she would not take possession; (4) the Landlord listed the rental Property for “sale only” with a real estate agent and that the rental Property remained listed for sale as of the date of the hearing; and (5) without a reasonable basis, failed to refund any portion of the Tenant’s security deposit after the Tenant informed her that no tenancy would occur. 

Although the Commission concluded that the Landlord’s withholding of the Tenant’s security deposit was unreasonable, it further concluded that the Landlord’s actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Tenant’s request for a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount was denied.

Case #:  27977, Adedoyin Onimole and Ayorinde Akinrinlola v. Therese Reese
Date:  June 13, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, Adedoyin Onimole and Ayorinde Akinrinlola (“Complainants”), filed a complaint alleging that in which they alleged that their former landlord, Therese Reese, (“Respondent”), then owner of an unlicensed rental Condominium, without a reasonable basis, failed to refund any portion of their $1,250.00 security deposit after they informed the Respondent, prior to taking possession of the Condominium, that due to financial hardship, no tenancy would occur and they would be unable to take possession at the commencement of the lease term.

The Respondent failed to respond to the complaint or provide any explanation regarding why the Complainants’ security deposit was not refunded, and, although properly served with a Summons and Statement of Charges, failed to appear at the public hearing in this matter.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund their entire $1,250.00 security deposit, plus a penalty of up to three times that amount based on the Respondent’s unreasonable withholding.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) The Respondent failed to obtain a Rental Facility License from the Department prior to offering the Condominium for rent to the Complainants, as required by the County Code; (2) twenty-one (21) days prior to the commencement date of the Lease, the Complainants informed the Respondent that due to financial difficulties they were unable to proceed with the Lease, and they never took possession of the Condominium; (3) the Respondent failed to properly mitigate the damages created by the Complainants’ breach of lease and failure to take possession at the commencement of the lease term, because at no time was the Condominium offered for rent by the Respondent after the Complainants notified her of their decision not to take possession; (4) the Respondent had an obligation to attempt to re-rent the Condominium, but failed to do so, and sold it instead; (5) the Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants’ $1,250.00 security deposit; and (6) Although the Commission concluded that the Respondent’s withholding of the Complainants’ security deposit was unreasonable, it found that her actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Complainants’ request for a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount was denied.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants $1,250.00, which sum represented their security deposit, and since the Complainants did not live at the Condominium for at least 6 months, no interest was due.

Case #:  27633, Brian Watson v. Yezid and Christine Valencia
Date:  June 12, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, Brian Watson, filed a complaint alleging that his former landlords, Yezid and Christine Valencia (“Respondents”), (1) failed to provide him with the opportunity to be present for a final walkthrough inspection of the Property, as required by the State Code; (2) assessed unjust charges against his security deposit after the termination of his tenancy; and (3) failed to send him an itemized list of damages together with a statement of the costs incurred to repair those damages 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) the actual costs they incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Complainant’s security deposit plus accrued interest; and (3) they sent to the Complainant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy.

The Complainant is seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund his security deposit ($2,000.00), plus accrued interest ($60.00), and a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount based on the Respondents’ unreasonable withholding.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant failed to properly request to be present for a final walkthrough inspection of the Property; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy; (3) the Respondents incurred actual expense to repair that damage in an amount that exceeded the amount of the Complainant’s security deposit plus accrued interest; (4) the Respondents sent the itemized list of damages, together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair that damage, to the Complainant within 45 days after the termination of the Complainant’s tenancy; and (5) the Respondents properly handled and disposed of the Complainant’s security deposit plus accrued interest in accordance with the requirements of the State Code.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the complainant, Case No. 27633, be DISMISSED.

Case #:  27529, Kay Kramer v. Eileen and Roland Martin
Date:  May 3, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, Kay Kramer, filed a complaint alleging that her former landlords, Eileen and Roland Martin (“Respondents”), (1) assessed unjust charges against her $1,550.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy, (2)  failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy.

The Respondents contended that: (1) the Complainant damaged the rental Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy; (2) the repairs were not completed within 45 days after the termination of the Complainant’s tenancy, however the repairs were made in conjunction with preparing the house for post-tenancy re-sale.

The Complainant was seeking an Order from the Commission for the Respondents to refund the remainder of her security deposit, in the amount of $1,050.00, plus $348.75 accrued interest.  At hearing, the Complainant amended her complaint to request, in addition to the refund of her entire security deposit plus accrued interest, a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Respondents failed to credit the Complainant with the correct amount of security deposit she paid at the commencement of her tenancy, which sum is $1,550.00 ($1,050.00 plus the pet deposit of $500.00); (2) the Complainant did not damage the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy and did not owe any rent to the Respondents; (3) the Respondents failed to pay to the Complainant the interest which had accrued on her security deposit which sum was $348.75; and (4) although the Respondents had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainant’s security deposit for damages, their actions were not egregious or in bad faith, and therefore, the Complainant’s request for a penalty was denied.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay Complainant $1,398.75 which sum represented the Complainant’s Security Deposit ($1,550.00) plus accrued interest ($348.75), less the amount previously refunded by the Respondents ($500.00).

The Respondents subsequently complied with the Commission’s Order and paid the Complainant the sum of $1,398.75.

Case #:  27624, Bora Mpinja v. Eugene Nyambal
Date:  May 2, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, Bora Mpinja (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that her former landlord, Eugene Nyambal (“Respondent”): (1) failed to provide her with a receipt for payment of her security deposit that contained all of the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (2) failed to refund any portion of her $600.00 security deposit after the end of her tenancy; (3) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, within 45  days after the termination of the tenancy; and (4) failed to take action to resolve ongoing disputes between her and her roommate, who was the Respondent’s agent, which forced her to terminate her tenancy.

The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainant verbally agreed to a one-year lease agreement, and breached that lease by vacating after only 5 months; (2) assuming Complainant is held to have been a month-to-month rather than a leasehold tenant, the Complainant failed to issue him a timely one month notice of her intention to vacate, which did not leave him sufficient time to find a replacement tenant quickly; (3) he did speak with his agent, the Complainant’s roommate, about problems with the Complainant, but felt those were only minor; and (4) he retained the Complainant's security deposit to cover unpaid rent.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent to refund her $600.00 security deposit.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant and the Respondent had an oral month-to-month lease for the rental of the Condominium; (2) the security deposit receipt provided by the Respondent did not contain any of the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (3) the Complainant notified the Respondent of problems she was having with her roommate, the Respondent’s agent, but his response to the situation was insufficient; (4) although the Complainant was a month-to-month tenant, she was justified in vacating the Condominium when she did, thereby terminating her tenancy, even without a notice to vacate because her roommate, acting as the Respondent’s agent, interfered with her peaceful enjoyment of the Condominium Unit, resulting in a constructive eviction.; (5) the Complainant owed no additional rent to the Respondent.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to: (1) pay Complainant $600.00, which sum represented her security deposit; and since the Complainant did not live at the Condominium for at least 6 months, no interest was due.

Case #:  25872, Nylander v. Gunter
Date:  January 2, 2007
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Michael Nylander (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that his former landlord, Courtney Gunter (“Respondent”): (1) without prior notice, his consent or by operation of law, re-entered and took possession of the rental Property approximately 27 days before the expiration of the lease term, and as a result, he was unable to clean the Property or make minor repairs prior to the termination of his tenancy; (2) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of his $4,400.00 security deposit within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy, and therefore, she was liable for a penalty of up to three times the withheld amount, plus reasonable attorney’s fees; and (3) re-rent the Property to another tenant, and failed to refund any portion of his pre-paid rent.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant: (1) abandoned the Property without notice and therefore, she was entitled to take possession and retain his rental payment; (2) damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of his tenancy, and she incurred actual expense, in the amount of $2,860.00 to repair that damage; (3) failed to pay the final water bill in the amount of $45.28; (4) she offered to refund a portion of the last month’s rent, but the Complainant refused.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent: (1) refund his last month’s rent in the amount of $4,300.00; (2) refund his entire $4,400.00 security deposit; and (3) pay a penalty of up to three times the unreasonably withheld amount, plus reasonable attorney’s fees.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant paid April rent in full to the Respondent and vacated the Property on April 3^rd and voluntarily surrendered possession to the Respondent on that date; (2) the Respondent re-rented the on April 21^st which terminated the Complainant’s tenancy and obligation to pay rent; (3) the Complainant caused minor damage to the Property during his tenancy that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear, however, most of the damages claimed by the Respondent were deficiencies that were either present at the commencement of the Complainant’s tenancy, normal wear and tear, or painting that had not been done prior to the Complainant’s tenancy; (4) the Complainant would have repaired the minor damage had he not been denied access to the Property by the Respondent; (5) the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with a statement of the actual cost incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy, and as a result, she forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainant’s security deposit for damages; (6) the Complainant failed to pay the final water bill for the Property, and therefore, the Respondent was within her right to withhold that amount from the Complainant’s security deposit; and (7) the Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainant’s security deposit, with the exception of the unpaid final water bill, and her withholding was unreasonable and in bad faith, which warranted the award of a penalty.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $6,512.74, which sum represented the Complainant’s security deposit ($4,400.00), plus a refund of rent for the period April 19-30 ($1,719.96), and a penalty of $500.00, less the amount of the final water bill ($107.22).

The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $6,512.74.

Case #:  26722, John and Kathleen Griffin v. Carolyn Lee Glusing
Date:  October 25, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: John and Kathleen Griffin (“Complainants”), filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Carolyn Lee Glusing (“Respondent”), (1) without a reasonable basis failed to refund any portion of their $1,425.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy, (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

The Complainants were seeking an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their security deposit ($1,425.00) plus accrued interest ($277.88), less the July, 2005 rent ($1,175.00), for an award of $527.88, plus a penalty of up to three times that amount.

The Respondent failed to respond to the complaint and, although personally served with a Summons and Statement of Charges, failed to appear at the public hearing or send an attorney to represent her.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) Complainants failed to pay their last month’s, in the amount of $1,175.00, to the Respondent as required by the Lease, and therefore, the Respondent was within her right to withhold that amount from the Complainants’ security deposit; (2) Complainants did not damage the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (3) Respondent failed to send to the Complainants an itemized list of damages being assessed against their security deposit together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair such damage, within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, and therefore, Respondent forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the Complainants' security deposit for damages; (4) Respondent failed to credit the Complainants’ security deposit with accrued simple interest in the amount of $277.88; and (5) Respondent had no reasonable basis to withhold any portion of the Complainants’ security deposit for damages other than unpaid rent for July 2005.

The Commission further found that the Respondent’s failure to refund the balance of the Complainants’ security deposit after advising Complainants she would do so, and by refusing to offer any explanation at any time for withholding the balance of the deposit, evidenced bad faith with respect to withholding the balance of the security deposit and complete disregard for law, and warranted an award of a penalty of three times the withheld amount of $527.88, which sum is $1,583.64.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants Respondent pay the Complainants $1,583.63, which sum represented three times the amount unreasonably withheld from the Complainants’ security deposit ($527.88 x 3 = $1,583.64).

To date, the Respondent has failed to comply with the Order.

Case #:  26651, Evelyn Hansen, et al. v. Robert Burdette
Date:  May 15, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  Evelyn Hansen, Louis Hansen, Olga Hansen and Angela Clark (“Complainants”) filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Robert Burdette (“Respondent”): (1) assessed unjust charges, in the amount of $1,560.50, against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; and (2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of the cost actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy.

The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainants damaged the bedroom window, and bathroom tub and floor in the rental property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) he incurred actual expense to repair that damage in the amount of $1,785.59; and (3) the cost incurred to repair the damage exceeded the amount of the Complainants’ security deposit plus accrued interest.

The Complainants were requesting an Order from the Commission for the Respondent to refund the balance of their security deposit plus accrued interest.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) at the time the Complainants vacated, the windows and bathtub in the property were approximately 27 years old; (2) the Complainants did not damage the bedroom windows or the bathtub and bathroom floor in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; and (3) the Respondent credited the Complainants’ security deposit with $310.50 accrued interest, but the correct amount of accrued interest was $293.75.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay Complainants $1,543.75, which sum represents the Complainants’ security deposit ($1,250.00), plus accrued interest ($293.75).

The Respondent subsequently complied with the Commission’s Order and paid the Complainants the sum of $1,543.75.

Case #:  26348, Holly Hill v. Kevin Maloney
Date:  May 15, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint: Holly Hill (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that his former landlord, Kevin Maloney (“Respondent”): (1) improperly charged her for May rent in the amount of $2,300.00; (2) assessed unjust charges against her $4,600.00 security deposit, after the termination of her tenancy; (3) failed to send her an itemized list of damages, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; and (4) failed to credit her security deposit with the correct amount of accrued interest.

The Respondent contended that: (1) the Complainant prematurely terminated her tenancy one month prior to the expiration of the lease renewal, and as a result, she was liable for May rent in the amount of $2,300.00; (2) the Complainant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during her tenancy, and the only charges assessed against her security deposit were the costs he actually incurred to repair that damage; (3) the Complainant’s failure to repaint the walls in the property caused him to lose a prospective tenant; and (4) he issued to the Complainant, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of the costs actually incurred to repair that damage.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that: (1) she did not owe May rent to the Respondent; and (2) the Respondent must refund the full amount of her security deposit plus accrued interest.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Complainant breached the Renewal Lease by prematurely terminating her tenancy as of April 30, 2005.  The Commission further finds that by failing to make good faith efforts to re-rent the Property beginning May 1, 2005, the Respondent failed to mitigate his damages as required by § 8-207(a)(3) of the State Code.  Therefore, the Commission finds that the Complainant is not responsible for May’s rent of $2,300.00; (2) the Respondent sent notice to the Complainant regarding the disposition of her security deposit within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; (3) the Respondent properly withheld $250 from the Complainant’s security deposit for yard maintenance that was not performed, $37.50 for gutter cleaning, $4.00 for HVAC filters, and $70.00 for lawn mowing, for a total of $361.50;  (4) the Respondent assessed against the Complainant’s security deposit costs that were not the responsibility of the Complainant to repair or maintain, or were not in excess in of ordinary wear and tear, in the amount of $829.96.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $3,029.22, which sum represented the amount of the Complainant’s security deposit ($4,600.00), less the amount previously refunded ($1,209.28) and less the amount properly withheld from the security deposit ($361.50) for damages.

Appeal:  The Respondent disagreed with the Commission’s ruling and appealed the Order to the Circuit Court including posting a bond in the amount of the Order, $3,029.22.  On February 12, 2007, the Circuit Court issued its Order which affirmed the Commission’s Decision as to damages, but reversed the Commission on the issue of rent owed ($2,300.00), and ordered that $2,300.00 of the posted bond be returned to the Respondent, and the balance of the bond, $729.22, be paid to the Complainant.

Case #:  25946, Lorraine Holmes v. Daryush Farazad
Date:  May 5, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  Lorraine Holmes (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that his former landlord, Daryush Farazad (“Respondent”): (1) misrepresented the rental property as a four bedroom unit at the commencement of her tenancy, when it was only a three bedroom unit; (2) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property in a professional and timely manner during her tenancy; (3) failed to refund any portion of her $1,450.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy; and (4) harassed her during the entire tenancy.

The Respondent contended that: (1) he adjusted the description of the Property from four bedrooms to three bedrooms after an inspection by the Housing Opportunities Commission (“HOC”); (2) he made all repairs to the Property requested by the Complainant in a timely and professional manner; (3) he deducted from the Complainant’s security deposit the cost he incurred to repair damage she caused to the Property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear; and (4) he did not harass the Complainant during her tenancy, but merely attempted to collect money owed to him by the Complainant.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire security deposit plus accrued interest.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) At the commencement of the Lease, HOC reduced the amount of the monthly rent paid to the Respondent from $1,800.00 to $1,514.00 per month, based on its determination that the property was a 3-bedroom unit, not a 4-bedroom unit; (2) the Respondent failed to send the Complainant an itemized list of damages being assessed against her security deposit, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy as required by the State Code, and therefore, the Respondent forfeited his right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and (3) the Respondent failed to refund to the Complainant interest which had accrued on her security deposit which sum was $29.00.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainant $1,479.00, which sum represents the Complainant’s security deposit ($1,450.00), plus accrued interest ($29.00).

Appeal:  The Respondent disagreed with the Commission’s ruling and appealed the Order to the Circuit Court including posting a bond in the amount of the Order, $1,479.00.

On June 5, 2006, the Circuit Court issued its Order which upheld the Commission’s findings, but ordered the Respondent to refund the security deposit plus accrued interest to the Montgomery County Department of Social Services which paid the security deposit to the Respondent on behalf of the Complainant.

On March 8, 2007, the Circuit Court issued a check to the Respondent in the amount of $1,479.00 with instructions to refund it to the Montgomery County Department of Social Services.

On June 13, 2007, the Respondent issued a check, in the full amount of $1,479.00, to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Case #:  26559, Wubu v. Phan
Date:  May 3, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  Abraham Wubu (“Complainant”), filed a complaint alleging that his former landlord, Hoai Thanh Phan (“Respondent”): (1) failed to advise him of his rights in writing at the time he paid his security deposit; (2) failed to provide him with a written receipt for the payment of his $1,295.00 security deposit that contained any of the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (3) failed to issue him an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy; (4) failed to refund any portion of his security deposit within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy; and (5) failed to credit his security deposit with accrued interest.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant: (1) failed to issue her a proper notice of his intention to vacate the Condominium, and therefore, he owes unpaid rent; (2) failed to pay for utility costs; (3) damaged the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy, and as a result, is not entitled to a refund of any portion of his security deposit plus accrued interest.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund his security deposit plus accrued interest.

Findings:  The Commission found that: (1) the Respondent failed to issue the Complainant a receipt for his payment of the security deposit that contained the disclosures and other information required by the State Code; (2) the Complainant did not damage the Condominium in excess of ordinary wear and tear during his tenancy, and did not owe any additional rent or utilities to the Respondent at the time he vacated; (3) the Respondent failed to send to the Complainant an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of his tenancy as required by the State Code; and (4) the Respondent failed to credit the Complainant’s security deposit with two and one-half (2 ˝) years’ accrued interest, as required by the State Code.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to: (1) pay Complainant $1,418.03, which sum represented his security deposit ($1,295.00), plus accrued interest ($123.03); and (2) for all future tenancies in Montgomery County, Maryland, use a lease agreement that fully complies with both the State Code and the Montgomery County Code.

The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $1,418.03.

Case #:  26326, Baer v. Clark, et al
Date:  January 26, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainant, Denise Baer, filed a complaint claiming that her former landlord, William H. Clark, Trustee for the William H. Clark Trust: (1) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, by first class mail within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to return one-half of May 2005 rent, in violation of the Lease Addendum; (3) failed to notify her of the date and time for the final walk-through inspection of the property; and (4) charged her for damage to the property that she did not cause or was not her responsibility to repair.

The Respondent contended that: (1) the itemized list of damages was hand-delivered to the Complainant before the 45-day deadline had expired; (2) the Complainant did not move out of the property on May 15, 2005, nor did he agree to refund one-half of May 2005 rent to her if she did so; and (3) he charged the Complainant for damage she caused to the property that was in excess of ordinary wear and tear.

The Complainant requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund her entire security deposit, plus accrued interest, and one-half of May 2005 rent, plus a penalty of three times the withheld amount.

Findings:  The Commission found that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease Addendum, the Complainant's tenancy terminated as of May 15, 2005, and she did not owe additional rent to the Respondent beyond that date. The Commission further found that the Respondent breached the Lease Addendum by failing to pay the Complainant one-half of May 2005 rent in the amount of $987.50, within 15 days after she vacated the property. ”  The Commission found that although the Complainant painted a bedroom with black paint during her tenancy without the Respondent's consent, which constituted damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and damaged the refrigerator door handle, shelf and kick-plate, mailbox, screen door and hardwood floors, in excess of ordinary wear and tear, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that he incurred any actual costs to repair those items, and therefore those charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit were disallowed.

The Commission found that the Complainant did not damage the garbage disposal, window sashes, driveway, exterior fencing and gate, kitchen floor tiles, and carpets, in excess of normal wear and tear, and therefore, those charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit were disallowed.

The Commission found that the Complainant was responsible to "keep grass and shrubbery trimmed and maintained," during her tenancy but because the Respondent's Agent waived this obligation and agreed to perform the required shrubbery trimming himself, the charges assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for trimming shrubbery and hauling away the debris, were disallowed.

The Commission found that although the Complainant damaged the kitchen window and storm window and screen in the rear bedroom in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and the Respondent incurred actual expense to repair the damage, the Respondent had forfeited his right to withhold these charges from the Complainant's security deposit because he failed to send to the Complainant an itemized list of damages, together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage, within 45 days after the termination of Complainant's tenancy.

The Commission found that pursuant to the Lease, Complainant was responsible for having the property de-fleaed and de-ticked by a professional exterminator at the termination of occupancy, but she failed to do so. Although the Respondent incurred actual expenses to have the property de-fleaed and de-ticked, he forfeited his right to withhold this amount from the Complainant's security deposit because he failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred to repair that damage within 45 days after the termination of Complainant's tenancy.

The Commission further found that Respondent failed to provide sufficient probative evidence that a disputed water bill was for a period of time that the Complainant occupied the Property, and therefore, the amount assessed against the Complainant's security deposit for the unpaid water bill was disallowed.

The Commission found that the Respondent miscalculated the amount of interest that had accrued on the Complainant's security deposit. The correct amount of accrued interest owed the Complainant was $108.63.

The Commission concluded that the Respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or egregiousness necessary to award a penalty, and therefore, Complainant's request for such an award was denied.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant $2,960.02, which sum represented her security deposit ($1,975.00) plus accrued interest ($108.63), less the amount previously refunded ($111.11), plus the equivalent of one-half of May 2005 rent ($987.50).

The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainant $2,960.02.

Case #:  26025, Payne v. Forbes
Date:  January 4, 2006
Subject:  Security Deposit
Summary of Complaint:  The Complainants, Randy and Sandra Payne, filed a complaint alleging that their former landlord, Denise Forbes, assessed unjust charges against their $1,375.00 security deposit plus accrued interest, after the termination of their tenancy, to repair damage that was not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and to repair damage that they did not cause.

The Respondent contended that the Complainants: (1) damaged the property in excess of ordinary wear and tear during their tenancy; (2) left the property in an unclean condition at the time they vacated; and (3) failed to pay the full amount of the rent due for November 2004.

The Complainants requested an Order from the Commission that the Respondent refund their entire security deposit, plus accrued interest, less the amount previously refunded by the Respondent, for a total award of $1,437.10.

Although she received proper notice of the hearing date and time, the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, which was conducted in her absence.

Findings:  The Commission found that at the time the Complainants vacated the property, the Complainants had paid all rent due to the Respondent, including their portion of November 2004 rent. Therefore, the Respondent's withholding of $542.00 from the Complainants' security deposit for unpaid rent was disallowed. ”  The Commission further found the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate either that the Complainants damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear or that she incurred any actual expense to repair that damage. Therefore, the Respondent's withholding of $895.85 from the Complainants' security deposit for repair of damages was disallowed.

The Order:  The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay Complainants $1,437.10, which sum represented the Complainants' security deposit ($1,375.00) plus accrued interest ($82.50), less $20.40 previously refunded to the Complainants.

The Respondent filed an appeal of the Commission's Order to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Circuit Court denied the appeal. The Respondent subsequently satisfied the Order and paid the Complainants $1,437.10.