Decisions and Orders for Highlighted Security Deposit Cases from 1996 - 2000

 

This page contains highlighted summaries of Decisions and Orders, for Security Deposit cases, made by the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affiars (COLTA) between 1996 and 2000.  To view the summary, click on the Case Number in the table below.  To view the complete Decision and Order, click on the Case Number contained within the summary.

To see a complete list of all Decisions and Orders for all types of cases, please go the Decisions and Orders page.

Case # Case Name Date Order Issued Prevailing Party/Award
10066 Bridgman vs. Hoang Aug. 8, 2000 Tenant $2,407.00
9887 Davis vs. Kushawaha Apr. 21, 2000 Landlord Dismissed
9017 Noyes vs. Martino Jan. 19, 2000 Tenant $1,233.21
9221 Urban vs. Winarsky Aug. 24, 1999 Tenant $1,404.15
9518 Thorne vs. Glee July 6, 1999 Tenant $432.81
4747 McCune vs. Swanner June 22, 1999 Landlord Dismissed
7788 Ryan, Ryan, & Davis vs. Winarsky May 6, 1999 Tenant $2,740.00
6305 Sidwell & Luksic vs. Kant Nov. 16, 1998 Tenant $3,018.00
4267 Haritos vs. Fitzell Aug. 12, 1998 Tenant $3,018.00
H-1172 Disse vs. Herst June 19, 1998 Tenant $1,102.40
H-3722 Douaji & Chirchi vs. Kent May 11, 1998 Tenant $1,208.70
H-1466 Brown, Clements, Nyberg, & Sobocinski vs. Perry July 24, 1997 Tenant $1,904.00
H-1394 Malry & Malry vs. Danesh June 17, 1996 Tenant $873.37

 

Case Summaries

Arrow, up icon Bridgman vs. Hoang

Case #  10066
Date Order Issued  August 8, 2000
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On October 4, 1999, David and Corrie Bridgman (tenants), filed a complaint in which they alleged that Minh Vu Hoang (Landlord): 1) assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy; 2) failed to send them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of actual costs incurred within 30 days after the termination of their tenancy; 3) failed to return their security deposit within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy; and 4) failed to return their curtains and blinds or allow them to retrieve them from the Property after they vacated.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

The Landlord failed to refund any portion of the Tenants’ $5,980.00 security deposit plus accrued interest ($239.00) within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy;
The Landlord returned $3,812.20 to the Tenants at the hearing.

Conslusions of Law

  1. The Tenants did not damage the rental property in excess of ordinary wear and tear as a result of their tenancy;
  2. The Landlord was not entitled to withhold any monies from the security deposit on the basis of damage to the rental property;
  3. The Landlord improperly withheld $2,407.00 of the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest, in violation of Section 8-203(g) of the State Code;
  4. The Tenants are not entitled to any reimbursement for their curtains, curtain rods and venetian blinds; and,
  5. The Landlord caused a defective tenancy by failing to properly handle and dispose of the Tenants’ security deposit in accordance with the requirements of Section 8-203 of the State Code, and Paragraph 3, "Security Deposit," of the Lease.

Accordingly, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,407.00, which sum represents a refund of the balance of the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest.

Arrow, up icon Davis vs. Kushawaha

Case #  9887
Date Order Issued  April 21, 2000
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On July 20, 1999, Pauline Davis, Tenant, filed a compliant against Vikram and Vijay Kushawaha, Landlord, in which she alleged that the Landlord: (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy; and (2) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. The hearing was originally scheduled for February 9, 2000.
  2. The Landlord requested the original hearing be postponed because he taught college courses in the evening and this request was granted.
  3. The hearing was rescheduled for March 21, 2000 and both the Landlord and Tenant were given proper notice.
  4. The Tenant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

On April 21, 2000, the Commission dismissed Case No. 9887 with prejudice due to the Tenant’s failure to be present.

Arrow, up icon Noyes vs. Martino

Case #  9017
Date Order Issued  January 19, 2000
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On August 20, 1998, Jeff and Deborah Noyes, Tenants, filed a complaint against Frank and Audrey Martino, Landlord, in which they allege that the Landlord assessed unjust damages in the amount of $1,110.57 against their $3,300.00 security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. The Landlord assessed damages against the Tenants' security deposit that were not beyond ordinary wear and tear, were never repaired, were unsubstantiated, or were the Landlord’s responsibility to repair.
  2. The Landlord failed to credit Tenant with the correct amount of security deposit interest.
  3. The Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit has caused a defective tenancy.
  4. The Landlord’s failed to issue an itemized list of damages together with a statement of cost actually incurred to repair that damage within thirty (30) days after the termination of the tenancy.

On January 19, 2000, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,233.21 which sum represents the total amount withheld from the security deposit ($1,010.57), plus $33.00 unpaid interest, less $60.36 which the Commission determined the Landlords were entitled to withhold, plus a penalty of $250.00 pursuant to § 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code, which the Commission determines is warranted based upon the facts in this case.

Arrow, up icon Urban vs. Winarsky

Case #  9221
Date Order Issued  August 24, 1999
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On July 10, 1998, Kathleen Urban, Tenant, filed a complaint alleging her former Landlord, Lewis and Susan Winarsky: (1) failed to give her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after she vacated the Property; (2) failed to return her security deposit within 45 days after she vacated the Property; and (3) assessed unjust damages against her security deposit plus accrued interest after the termination of her tenancy at the property.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that:

  1. the Tenant failed to give the Landlord 30 days' written notice to vacate as required by the lease, however the landlord acknowledged receipt of the Tenant’s verbal notice to vacate and extended the vacate date until May 10, 1998;
  2. the Complainant vacated the Property on May 10, 1998, paying no rent for that period;
  3. the Landlord re-rented the Property on May 10, 1998 and new tenants moved in on that date, therefore the Tenant owes pro rata rent for the period May 1-9, 1998;
  4. the Tenant damaged the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear by removing and discarding the bedroom entrance door and the landlord incurred actual expense in the amount of $123.95, not the $165.90 the Landlord assessed against the Tenant’s security deposit. The Landlord's assessment of $165.90 constitutes a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) and (h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code");
  5. the receipt for the Tenant’s security deposit contained in the lease does not contain language informing the Tenant of her right to receive a written list of existing damages from the Landlord at the commencement of her tenancy, and the procedure for requesting it, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code and the Landlord is therefore liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit, in compliance with Section 8-203(d) (2) of the State Code;
  6. the lease does not contain language informing the Tenant of her right to be present for the final walk-through inspection of the Property and the procedure for making this request, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code and therefore, the Landlord has forfeited his right to withhold any part of the security deposit for damages;
  7. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant , by first-class mail to her last known address, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred, in violation of Section 8-230(h)(1) of the State Code and therefore, pursuant to Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code, the Landlord has forfeited the right to withhold any portion of the security deposit for damages; and
  8. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code and Chapter 29 of the County Code has caused a defective tenancy.

On August 24, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,404.15, which sum represents threefold the amount of the security deposit ($550.00), plus accrued interest ($22.00), less the amount previously refunded ($105.13) and pro rata rent for 9 days ($162.72).

Arrow, up icon Thorne vs. Glee

Case #  9518
Date Order Issued  July 6, 1999
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On December 11, 1998, Teresa Thorne, Tenant, filed a complaint against Ulysses Glee, Landlord, in which she alleged the Landlord: (1) failed to send her an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy; and (2) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. the Tenant gave the Landlord proper notice to vacate, in accordance with the Lease;
  2. the Tenant vacated October 10, 1998, having paid September’s rent in full;
  3. the Landlord did not send to the last known address of the Tenant, an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code")and therefore he is not entitled to retain any portion of the security deposit for damages per Section 8-203(h)(2) of the State Code;
  4. the Landlord is required to pay the Tenant simple interest in the amount of 5% per the provisions of the Lease;
  5. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit, less damages rightfully withheld, within 45 days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code; and
  6. the Landlord’s failure to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in compliance with Section 8-203 "Security Deposits" of the State Code has caused a defective tenancy.

On July 6, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $432.81, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit (595.00) plus accrued interest (29.75) less pro rata rent for the period October 1-10, 1998 (191.94).

Arrow, up icon McCune vs. Swanner

Case #  4747
Date Order Issued  June 22, 1999
Subject  Condition of the Property at Move-In; Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On August 6, 1997, Dennis H. McCune, Tenant, filed a complaint against David Swanner, Landlord, in which he alleged the Landlord 1) failed to deliver the Property to him in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the time he took possession; and 2) failed to refund his security deposit after he notified the Landlord of his intention not to take possession of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. the Landlord did deliver the Property to the Complainant with deficiencies which included an unclean gas stove, that was not usable in its current condition and a musty odor emanating from a carpet on the porch addition to the Property;
  2. the Tenant vacated the Property within four days of taking possession;
  3. the deficiencies noted in number 1 were corrected after the Tenant vacated the Property;
  4. the Tenant failed to provide sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate the Property was uninhabitable; and
  5. the Tenant was not justified in breaking his lease agreement with the Landlord, therefore the withholding of the security deposit by the Landlord was justified.

On June 22, 1999, the Commission dismissed Case No. 4747, Dennis H. McCune v. David Swanner.

Arrow, up icon Ryan, Ryan, & Davis vs. Winarsky

Case #  7788
Date Order Issued  May 6, 1999
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On April 29, 1998, Jane Van Ryan, Jordan Van Ryan and Kara Davis, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging their former Landlord, Lewis I. Winarsky: (1) signed an Agreement with them that terminated their tenancy effective June 30, 1997 and stipulated the security deposit would be returned in accordance with all applicable; (2) failed to give them an itemized list of damages together with a statement of costs actually incurred within 30 days after they vacated the Property; and (3) failed to return their security deposit within 45 days after they vacated the Property.

After holding a public hearing the Commission found that the Landlord:

  1. signed an Agreement with the Tenants which stipulated that only problems noted at the final walk through inspection, to be done on June 30, 1997, could be charged against the Tenants’ security deposit. The Landlord failed to appear at the final walk through or make arrangements for a representative to be present at the walk through;
  2. the Landlord’s attorney faxed an itemized list of damages to the Tenants’ attorney on July 29, 1997, but did not, as specified by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code"), send a letter by first class mail to the last known address of the Tenant, which caused a defective tenancy;
  3. signed an Agreement with the Tenant, which became an addendum to the lease and replaced Paragraph 15 of the lease. His failure to comply with the provisions of the Agreement by appearing at the final walk-through inspection preclude him from claiming any damages to the Property in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
  4. failed to give the Tenant a written receipt for payment of the security deposit containing language informing them of their right to receive a written list of existing damages from the Landlord and the procedure for requesting it, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code and is therefore liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit, in compliance with Section 8-203(d) (2) of the State Code;
  5. assessed the costs of repairs against the Tenants security deposit that were not in excess of ordinary wear and tear, which is a violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; and,
  6. failed to refund any portion of the Tenants security deposit within 45 days after the termination of their tenancy, which was both willful and unreasonable and constitutes an egregious violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code and renders the Landlord liable for threefold the amount of the security deposit as penalty;
  7. signed an Agreement with the Tenants which stipulated that only problems noted at the final walk through inspection, to be done on June 30, 1997, could be charged against the Tenants’ security deposit. The Landlord failed to appear at the final walk through or make arrangements for a representative to be present at the walk through;
  8. the Landlord’s attorney faxed an itemized list of damages to the Tenants’ attorney on July 29, 1997, but did not, as specified by Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, as amended ("State Code"), send a letter by first class mail to the last known address of the Tenant, which caused a defective tenancy.

On May 6, 1999, the Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,740.00, which sum represents a refund of their entire security deposit ($685.00), plus a three-fold penalty ($2,055.00).

Arrow, up icon Sidwell & Luksic vs. Kant

Case #  6305
Date Order Issued  November 16, 1998
Subject  Security Deposit, Retaliation

Summary of Complaint
On December 17, 1997, Alexis Sidwell and Jill Luksic, Tenants, filed a complaint against Chander and Ashima Kant, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord assessed unjust charges against their security deposit, in the amount of $427.00 after the termination of their tenancy.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

  1. the Landlord failed to appear, or appoint anyone to appear on his behalf, after being properly notified and summoned to appear before the Commission;
  2. the Tenants vacated on October 31, 1997, leaving the Property in satisfactory condition, as evidenced by the testimony of Inspector John Whitt, of the Division of Housing and Code Enforcement ("DHCE") and the Landlord’s agent, Art Hinton, who jointly conducted the final walkthrough inspection of the Property;
  3. the Landlord assessed $24.00 in court costs against the Tenants’ security deposit but failed to provide any documentation that these costs were awarded by the court, in violation of Section 29-26(o) of Chapter 29, Landlord-Tenant Relations of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended ("County Code");
  4. the Landlord charged the Tenants $159.00 for carpet cleaning and $244.00 for wall repairs, even though the inspection conducted by Inspector Whitt and the Landlord’s agent revealed no damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear;
  5. DHCE informed the Landlord by letter dated December 18, 1998, that there was no evidence that the Property was damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear, therefore, the charges were disallowed;
  6. the Landlord sent the Tenants a refund check in the amount of $66.55 after receiving this letter from DHCE;
  7. the Landlord wrote the statement on the check for $66.55, "Cashing of this check by Jill Luksic and Alexis Sidwell means their agreement that they have no claim against Chander and Ashima Kant. However, Chander and Ashima Kant can still assert any or all claims against Jill Luksic and Alexis Sidwell.";
  8. the Commission found that statement to be retaliatory and found the Landlord’s threats to pursue legal action against the Tenants for harassment to be retaliatory and in violation of Section 29-30B(b) of the County Code; and 9) the Landlord’s handling of the Tenants’ security deposit, in violation of Section 8-203 of the State Code caused a defective tenancy.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,708.00, which sum represents a refund of the improperly withheld portion of their security deposit ($427.00) and a three-fold penalty ($1,281.00) for unreasonably withholding that amount from their security deposit. The Commission further ordered the Tenants to either return the Landlord’s check in the amount of $66.25 or refund to the Landlord the amount of $66.25.

Arrow, up icon Haritos vs. Fitzell

Case #  4267
Date Order Issued  August 12, 1998
Subject  Security Deposit, Condition of the Property at Move-In

Summary of Complaint
On June 25, 1997, George and Regina Haritos, Tenants, filed a complaint against Brian and Joanne Fitzell, Landlords, in which they alleged the Landlord 1) failed to deliver the Property to them in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the time they were scheduled to take possession; 2) failed to make needed and necessary repairs to the Property prior to their scheduled move-in date; 3) failed to provide them with the lead paint disclosure required by State law; and, 4) failed to refund their security deposit and first month’s rent after they notified the Fitzells in writing of their intention not to take possession of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. the Landlord failed to deliver the Property in a clean safe and sanitary condition, in violation of Section 29-26(n) of the County Code and the Tenants were justified in refusing to take possession of the Property;
  2. the lease for the Property never became possessory, no present leasehold interest was created, and the Landlord was not entitled to rent;
  3. the Landlord had no reasonable basis to withhold the Tenants’ security deposit and improperly disposed of it, in violation of Section 8-203 of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996 ("State Code"); and
  4. the Landlord failed to give a proper receipt for the security deposit in violation of Section 8-203(a) of the State code.

On August 12, 1998, the Commission declared the lease between the Landlord and Tenants null and void and ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $3,018.00, which sum represents the Tenants’ pro-rated rent, $133.00, their security deposit $1,375.00, their first month’s rent $1,375.00, $25.00 penalty for failing to properly receipt the security deposit, and simple interest of $110.00.

Arrow, up icon Disse vs. Herst

Case # H-1172
Date Order Issued  June 19, 1998
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On October 3, 1996, Michelle Lynne Disse, Tenant, filed a complaint against Roger E. Herst, Landlord, in which she alleged that the Landlord (1) assessed unjust charges against her security deposit after the termination of her tenancy; (2) failed to send her an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of her tenancy; (3) failed to return her security deposit plus accrued interest, within forty-five (45) days after the termination of her tenancy; and, (4) the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission determined that:

  1. the Tenant gave proper notice to vacate the Property by May 31, 1996;
  2. the Tenant provided the Landlord with her new telephone number and forwarding address by memorandum dated May 31, 1996;
  3. the Landlord failed to send the Tenant a written list of damages claimed against her security deposit together with a statement of actual costs incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1996, ("State Code") and therefore forfeited the right to withhold any part of the security deposit for damages;
  4. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenant’s security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
  5. the Landlord failed to return the Tenant’s security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five days after the termination of her tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and
  6. the Landlord caused a defective tenancy by failing to handle and dispose of the Tenant’s security deposit in accordance with the requirement of Section 8-203 of the State Code.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenant $1,102.40, which sum represents the Tenant’s security deposit ($895.00) plus accrued interest from the date the Tenant moved in until the time of the hearing ($107.40) and a penalty of $100.00.

Arrow, up icon Douaji & Chirchi vs. Kent

Case #  H-3722
Date Order Issued  May 11, 1998
Subject  Security Deposit, Condition of the Property at Move-In

Summary of Complaint
On May 9, 1997, Nadir Douaji and Norridine Chirchi, Tenants, filed a complaint against Jeffrey Kent, Landlord, in which they alleged that the Landlord failed to provide the Property to them in a clean, safe and sanitary condition at the commencement of their lease.

The tenants sought immediate termination of their lease agreement and the immediate return of their security deposit in full.

The Landlord alleged that: (1) most of the required/requested repairs were made;(2)

the Tenants signed a lease to rent the property "as is"; and (3) he was under no obligation to return their deposit since they defaulted on the lease.

After a public hearing was held, the Commission found that:

  1. the Landlord failed to correct several violations of Chapter 26, Housing and Building Maintenance Standards of the Montgomery County Code, 1996, as amended ("County Code") before the Tenants moved in, the most serious being a missing smoke detector outside the kitchen area;
  2. while the Landlord did take steps to correct the deficiencies that existed at the Property, he failed to bring it up to habitable standards, despite having ample time to do so; and,
  3. the Landlord failed to meet the standard in Section 29-26(n) of the County Code which requires that each lease for a rental facility located in Montgomery County must "contain a covenant that the landlord will deliver the leased premises and all common areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition, free of rodents and vermin and in complete compliance with all applicable laws."

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants $1,208.70 which sum represents their security deposit ($1,185.00) plus 11 months accrued simple interest ($23.70).

The Landlord has filed an appeal with the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for judicial review but to date, this case has not been heard.

Arrow, up icon Brown, Clements, Nyberg, & Sobocinski vs. Perry

Case #  H-1466
Date Order Issued  July 24, 1997
Subject  Security Deposit, Failure to Make Repairs, Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On December 22, 1995, Brown, Clements, Nyberg and Sobocinski, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging that their Landlord, Perry: (1) misrepresented the basement as bedroom space; (2) failed to make required, requested repairs to the furnace, which caused the Tenants’ to be without use of the furnace for an extended period of time; and, (3) failed to properly waterproof the basement which allowed it to leak constantly, causing damage to the tile floor along with the buildup of mildew in the basement.

The Tenants sought: (1) immediate termination of their lease agreement; (2) a refund of their security deposit plus accrued interest; and, (3) an abatement of their rent based on the reduced amount of usable bedroom space as a result of the landlord’s failure to make required and requested repairs in a timely and workmanlike manner, which reduced the value of the Property.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. the Tenants’ tenancy had already terminated before the commencement of the hearing, thus terminating the lease was a moot issue;
  2. the Landlord failed to advise the tenants of their right to be present during the final walkthrough inspection of the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code");
  3. the Landlord failed to advise the Tenants of their right to receive a list of all existing damages to the Property, in violation of Section 8-203(c)(3) of the State Code;
  4. the Landlord failed to present to the Tenants within thirty (30) days of the termination of their tenancy, an itemized list of damages together with actual costs incurred, in violation of Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
  5. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% interest, in the amount of $104.00, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code; and,
  6. the Landlord, without reasonable basis, failed to return the Tenants’ security deposit plus accrued interest within forty-five (45) days after the termination of their tenancy, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(4) of the State Code for which the Commission awarded a penalty in the amount of $500.00;
  7. although the Tenants did provide credible evidence of the Landlord’s failure to make required/requested repairs to the furnace and the leaking basement, they failed to demonstrate that they were damaged in any way by this; and,
  8. the Tenants failed to provide credible evidence that the Landlord advertised the Property as a four bedroom house and therefore, the request for a rent rebate was denied.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants the sum of $1,904.00, which sum represented the Tenants’ security deposit ($1,300) plus 2 years’ simple interest ($104) and a $500.00 penalty.

​Arrow, up icon Malry & Malry vs. Danesh

Case #  H-1394
Date Order Issued  June 17, 1996
Subject  Security Deposit

Summary of Complaint
On August 30, 1995, Darren and Shawn Malry, Tenants, filed a complaint alleging that Maijid Danesh, Landlord, assessed unjust charges against their security deposit after the termination of their tenancy in violation of Section 8-203(g)(1) of the Real Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland ("State Code").

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. the Landlord did send the Tenants an itemized list of damages within thirty (30) days after the termination of their tenancy at the Property, in compliance with Section 8-203(h)(1) of the State Code;
  2. the Landlord failed to credit the Tenants’ security deposit with 4% simple interest, in violation of Section 8-203(f)(1) of the State Code;
  3. the Landlord failed to provide credible evidence that the monies withheld from the Tenants’ security deposit were for damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear as required by Section 8-203(g)(1) of the State Code; and,
  4. the Landlord did incur damage in the amount of $41.53 for an unpaid water bill left by the Tenants, for which he is entitled to reimbursement.

The Commission ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants the sum of $873.37, which sum represents Tenants’ security deposit ($895.00) plus accrued interest ($17.90) less damages rightfully withheld ($41.53).