|
§ 05-12-080,
Security Deposits
Nothing in section 5-12-080(f) requires proof that the
landlord’s actions were knowing or willful.
Lawrence v.
Regent Realty Group, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 1, 9-10 (2001).
A landlord’s duty to
comply with the statute is absolute. If a landlord requires a
security deposit, the landlord is required to pay the tenant
interest on that deposit. If he fails to do so, he is liable to the
tenant for the damages specified in the statue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A tenant "vacates" when they
actually surrender possession of the premises, and the 45-day window for
return of the security deposit under 080(d) accrues at that time.
Meyer v. Cohen, 260 Ill. App. 2d 351, 361 (1st Dist. 1993).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual security deposit is not
included in the "double-deposit-sized" damages available under 080(f).
Solomon v. American National Bank and
Trust Co., 243 Ill. App. 132, 136-137 (1st Dist. 1993).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no "de minimus" or "no harm" exceptions to this
section.
Plambeck v.Greystone Management, 281 Ill. App. 3d 260, 272 (1st Dist. 1996).
The court rejects excuses for commingling and
the "no harm" argument where the security deposit is returned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Plaintiff’s cause of action is
based upon commingling of assets, the TWO YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS accrues when the landlord deposits the
security deposit.
Namur v. The Habitat
Company, 294 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 1013 (1st Dist. 1998).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This case had said the landlord only
owed damages equal to double the deposit if their failure to comply with
080 was "willful." It was
OVERRULED
by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2001
in Lawrence
Szpila v. Burke,
279 Ill. App. 3d 964, 972 (1st Dist. 1996)
|
