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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT