946 N.E.2d 646
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- DiGiacomo and Eppl entered a one-year lease on a Cedar Point Apartments unit with a $550 security deposit.
- The lease allowed withholding for damages beyond normal wear and tear and other charges; 45-day notice after termination required itemization of damages per statute.
- In early 2009, they entered a holdover month-to-month tenancy; DiGiacomo vacated February 13, 2009.
- Eppl sent an itemized damages list in April 2009, claiming damages and a balance due; DiGiacomo sued for deposit return in February 2010.
- Small claims court ruled the itemization was untimely and awarded DiGiacomo the deposit and fees; Eppl appealed.
- On review, the Indiana Court of Appeals held the lease terminated February 28, 2009, making the 45-day clock run from that date, reversed the judgment, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Eppl after calculating specific damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 45-day notice of damages was timely | Eppl contends the tenancy ended February 13, 2009, so itemization was timely only if the surrender date triggered the 45-day clock. | DiGiacomo argues surrender occurred February 13, 2009, and itemization within 45 days was proper. | Timeliness of itemization depends on February 28, 2009 termination; court held 45-day clock began February 28, 2009. |
| Whether Eppl could claim damages given the itemization | Eppl argues itemization was deficient and damages improper. | DiGiacomo argues itemization valid and permissible damages may be offset from deposit. | Because itemization and surrender were resolved in Eppl’s favor on remand, Eppl may recover proper damages; court remanded for calculation of undisputed nail-hole damages and broken fixture costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc., 646 N.E.2d 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (termination triggers 45-day notice period for damages)
- Floyd v. Rolling Ridge Apartments, 768 N.E.2d 951 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (surrender and acceptance analysis for end of term)
- Grueninger Travel Service of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Inc. v. Lake County Trust Co., 413 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (delivery of keys alone not sufficient to release tenant)
- Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (surrender may be express or by operation of law)
- Pinnacle Properties v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (defective itemization treated as no itemization)
- Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481 (Ind.2003) (statutory scheme aims to timely return deposits and penalizes failure to itemize)
- Mayflower Transit, Inc. v. Davenport, 714 N.E.2d 794 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (deferential review in small claims; burden on party seeking relief)
- Hirsch v. Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Indiana, 336 N.E.2d 833 (Ind.App.1975) (mere surrender requires more than delivery of keys)
- Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc., 646 N.E.2d 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (timing of notices and termination mechanics for security deposits)
- G r u e n i n g e r Travel Service of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Inc. v. Lake County Trust Co., 413 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (surrender principles and landlord acceptance)