Chicago Tenant vs Landlord Trial Judgment

DEPOSIT RETURN EXAMPLES

In this case the the tenant rented a condo unit in Chicago from June 18, 2006 to June 18, 2007. Tenant gave a $3,900 security deposit.

Like so many other condo landlords, this condo landlord messed everything up. The landlord didn't pay interest on the security deposit after the end of the tenant's 12-month rental period. The landlord also didn't keep the tenant's security deposit in a separate bank account. The landlord refused to return a portion of deposit after the tenants moved out.

At trial the Tenant was awarded damages under RLTO § 080(f) equal to two times the $3,900 security deposit; or $7,800, because landlord violated RLTO § 080(a) by commingling and 080(c) by failing to pay interest. Tenant was also awarded the $66 in interest at 1.71% plus costs and attorney fees.

The result in this case was consistent with the law. Seven years ago the Illinois Supreme Court published its opinion in Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 1 (2001) that:

"The purpose of the law is to help protect the rights of tenants with respect to their security deposits, including the right to receive interest. In most cases, the amount of interest landlords owe for security deposits is small, too small to warrant litigation against a landlord who refuses to abide by the law. Without the prospect of liability for significant additional damages, landlords would therefore have little incentive to meet their statutory obligations. They could withhold the interest payments with impunity. And many do. A study cited by plaintiff and presented to the circuit court showed that failure of landlords to pay interest on security deposits is a pervasive problem in the City of Chicago."