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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT