Illinois Security Deposit Lawyer

 SECURITY DEPOSIT LAW CASES

    

     In this case the tenants were four Northwestern University students renting a house in Evanston on Hamlin Street. 

House on Hamlin, Evanston

     The tenants gave a $3,300 security deposit.  They paid all rent and lived at the house 12 months and moved out the last day of the lease: August 31, 2006. 

     In envelopes postmarked September 22, 2006 the landlord returned only $606.44 from the $3,300 security deposit.  The landlord enclosed a written statement alleging $2,700 in damage and dirtiness. 

22 SEP 2006 PM 3

     The tenants were smart, and kept the envelopes.  Section 5-3-5-1(C) of the Evanston City Code requires that:

  "Upon termination of the tenancy, property or money held by the landlord as security or prepaid rent may be applied to the payment of accrued rent and the amount of damages which the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant抯 noncompliance with Section 5𦠬-1 hereof, all as itemized by the landlord in a written notice delivered to the tenant together with the amount due twenty one (21) days after tenant has vacated his unit. Any security or prepaid rent not so applied, and any interest on such security due to the tenant, shall be paid to the tenant within twenty one (21) days after tenant has vacated his unit."

     Section 5-3-5-1(F) of the Evanston City Code says:

  "If the landlord fails to comply with subsection (C) of this section, the tenant may recover the property and money due him together with damages in an amount equal to twice the amount wrongfully withheld and reasonable attorney fees."

      The landlord rejected DepositLaw's written demand for return of the tenants' deposit:

Dear Mr. Silverman: Your letter to *** has been placed into my hands. Frankly, I find your clients' claim lacking in merit and their demand outrageous. Consequently, their demand is hereby denied. Furthermore, please be advised that, should your clients pursue their frivolous claim, we will file a counterclaim against them for additional damages incurred subsequent to the return of the diminished security deposit. Of course, we will then seek appropriate attorney fees pursuant to the terms of the lease. Finally, and pursuant to Order 2.3 of the General Orders of the Circuit Court of Cook County, I expect any litigation to be commenced, and prosecuted, in the Second Municipal District. Any attempt to have this matter litigated within the first Municipal District will be met with a motion to transfer as well as a motion for sanctions.

     Through DepositLaw the student tenants filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.  They alleged the landlord's return of the deposit refund and written accounting were one day late, and that the landlord therefore owed the tenants double the amount withheld plus court costs and attorney fees.

     At trial the the judge awarded tenants return of another $1,750 from their deposit, plus awarded their court costs against the landlord.  The judge also believed that the deposit and accounting were not provided by the landlord within 21 days.  But the judge refused to order the landlord to pay the tenants twice the amount wrongfully withheld and the tenants' attorney fees. 

     The judge said "I don't find one day to be a significant breach of the ordinance."

     Through DepositLaw the tenants appealed the judge's decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals, which reversed the Circuit Court judge and ordered the landlord to pay the $1750 plus twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus tenants' attorney fees and court costs.

     On remand to the circuit court, Mark at DepositLaw argued that twice the $1750 was not what the ERLTO meant by "twice the amount wrongfully withheld" because all of the $3,300 deposit plus interest was wrongfully withheld and not accounted for in 21 days.  Even the partial refund made by the landlord was wrongfully withheld, because it was not returned until 22 days after the tenants moved out.  Words were minced, and ultimately the tenants were awarded twice the full amount of their security deposit plus interest, plus return of the $1750 awarded to them at trial, plus costs and over $6,000 in attorney fees for a total judgment exceeding $16,000. 

     In Evanston 21 days means 21 days.

Final Order awarding tenants $9,019.30 plus $910 in costs and $6,209 in attorney fees

 

NOTICE

This appellate court order is not published and may not be cited as precedent in the courts of Illinois.  See Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. ORDER. Plaintiffs, *, *, *, and *, filed a small-claims complaint alleging various violations of the Evanston Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (Ordinance) (Evanston Municipal Code 5-3 et seq. (2005)). Following an informal bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $1,750 plus costs. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying them an additional award of statutory damages and attorney fees based on defendant's failure to return their security deposit within 21 days after they vacated the premises. In its appellate brief, defendant denies

that it missed the Ordinance's 21-day deadline. For the reasons that follow, we find that once the trial court determined defendant had acted one day late, it lacked the discretion to deny plaintiffs an award of exemplary damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs are college students who rented an Evanston house from defendant from September 1, 2005, to August 31, 2006. Plaintiffs gave defendant a security deposit of $3,300. On September 22, 2006, defendant sent each of the plaintiffs a letter returning a portion of their security deposits and detailing the cost of various repairs done to the house after plaintiffs moved out. Defendant deducted a total of $2,750 from the security deposit and returned $151.61 to each plaintiff, explaining that the reimbursement reflected the total security deposit amount plus interest minus repair costs. Plaintiffs filed a small-claims complaint challenging the amount of the deductions. Plaintiffs also asserted that because defendant failed to return the security deposit and deliver written notice of deductions within 21 days after they vacated the house on August 31, 2006, defendant was in violation f the Ordinance and owed them damages in an amount equal to twice the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney fees. At the outset of the trial, the court noted that

plaintiffs' tenancy terminated on August 31, 2006, and that the letters defendant sent to plaintiffs returning a portion of the security deposit and itemizing the deductions were postmarked September 22, 2006. The court then stated, "I don't find one day to be a significant breach of the Ordinance. What I'm more concerned about is the reasonableness of the deductions, whether they're warranted, it at all, or whether they're warranted to the extent claimed or whether they're warranted fully. And I think that's the issue to be sorted out. What is reasonable in terms of the deductions, if any, to the house? I assume you have photographs or something?" Following this statement by the trial court, defendant's attorney presented photographs of the house taken after plaintiffs moved out and invoices reflecting the cost of various repairs. Defense counsel then presented the testimony of Nefrette Halim, the manager for Maple Avenue Properties, and Cheryl Scherbaum, a housing inspector for the City of Evanston. Plaintiff's evidence consisted of the testimony of two of the plaintiffs, * and *. In argument, plaintiffs' counsel asserted that defendant returned the security deposit and delivered written notice of the deductions 22 days after plaintiffs vacated the house, one day beyond the time limit specified in the Ordinance. Plaintiffs'

Email Attorney about Renter RightsAbout Attorney SilvermanIllinois Security Deposit Law CasesIllinois Renter InformationDisclaimer - this is not legal advice