Case Links for August 10, 2005
Six new cases from the Indiana Court of Appeals today, plus three more from earlier this week:
It is amazing the lengths people will go over a very little amount of money. This is an landlord/tenant case out of small claims, and a must read for you owners of rental property as it is one of the rare cases where the Court explains the workings of Indiana’s security deposit statute. The general rule in that area is “landlord beware.”
August 10th, 2005 23:43
I have a real problem with that landlord-tenant decision. First, the statute requires that the tenant provide the landlord with written notice of the tenant’s new address. In this case, the tenant provided oral notice of the tenant’s address and the court provided the landlord’s attorney with written notice of the tenant’s address. Maybe I read it too quickly, but the opinion says that it’s o.k. to provide the notice to the attorney because the landlord’s suit was for the security deposit. But, from what I read in the statement of facts, the landlord filed suit on breach of contract, asking for rent and possible compensation for damaged property and didn’t ask the court to take any action at all with regard to the security deposit. It wasn’t until the counterclaim was filed that the security deposit was brought into the legal proceedings. So, first, I don’t think the attorney was an appropriate agent to receive notice of a new address from the tenants; and second, I think the statute is in derogation of common law and ought to be strictly construed — meaning oral notice by the tenant doesn’t cut it and written notice by the court doesn’t cut it.
Another thing that bugs me is that the landlord’s substantive rights were prejudiced by the court’s granting of two continuances requested by the tenant. If the case had been heard on any of the first two trial dates, the security deposit statute wouldn’t have been an issue at all, the landlord’s claim would have been reduced to judgment, and any security deposit issues would have been an invalid collateral attack on a judgment. Or, at any rate, the security deposit statute’s implied waiver of damages by the landlord wouldn’t have been available. Possibly the tenant could have proceeded with a claim for the deposit itself.
But, yeah, the lesson is that landlords should just bombard former tenants with itemized lists of damages at every opportunity.