ILNews

High court rules on landlord-tenant dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Landlords must refund a security deposit and can't get money back for property damage if they don't adequately or timely notify tenants about those claims, but landlords can still recover unpaid rent and other losses, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

In a landlord-tenant dispute involving Indiana's statutes on back-rent payment and return of a security deposit, justices ruled 4-1 in favor of the landlord in Stan Klotz v. Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann, No. 18S02-0807-CV-391.

Tenants Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann had entered a yearlong rental agreement in July 2006, paying Stan Klotz a $600 security deposit and rent for July and half of August but made no other payments. The court shows they stopped living there sometime in August or September 2006, and the landlord sent a letter about the intent to start eviction proceedings that November because of their non-payment of rent. They didn't respond, and he filed a small claim in January 2007. Klotz presented evidence that the total amount was almost $11,919 in unpaid rent, late fees, damages, and attorney fees, but he asked the court for a judgment of $6,000 - the small claims' statutory limit.

Delaware Circuit Judge John Feick dismissed Klotz's breach-of-lease complaint in 2007, but early last year an Indiana Court of Appeals panel reversed that decision in Klotz v. Hoyt, 880 N.E.2d 1234, 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)  and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the landlord for $6,000.

Justices took the case to resolve conflicting precedent on the issue, four agreeing with the conclusion the Court of Appeals had reached. Writing for the majority, Justice Brent Dickson wrote that the court is harmonizing conflicting provisions of Indiana Code 32-31-3-12 to 16 relating to deposits and notice of damage claims.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard concurred in result but penned his own response offering thoughts on an additional legal question about small claims procedures.

"Because we do not receive very many appeals from the 300,000 small claims cases litigated each year in Indiana, I would go a bit further and answer a question posed by this appeal but not answered in the Court's opinion," he wrote, noting that a legitimate claim of a landlord or tenant shouldn't always be dictated by a required 45-day mailing deadline before a hearing.

"Our state (and most others) has always believed that such informal approaches to small claims disputes make for substantial justice to litigants on both sides of the 'versus,'" he wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Frank Sullivan wrote that the majority misreads part of the state statute.

"Simply put, if occupancy ends with a tenant owing a landlord more than the amount of the security deposit in damages ... subsection (c) expressly authorized the landlord to recover the additional amount - but only so long as the landlord has complied with [other sections]," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT