Lyle v. Mangar
2011 ME 129
Me.2011Background
- On December 1, 2008, the Lyles signed a Monthly Rental Agreement for a Kennebunk house: rent $900 due on the first; security deposit $900.
- The lease allowed the landlord to apply all or part of the deposit for obligations under the lease, with any balance returned at termination and no right to apply to the last month’s rent.
- The lease required the deposit to be refunded within two weeks of possession, with a written statement of any charges against the deposit and the amount retained.
- Termination required at least one full month’s prior written notice by either party.
- The Lyles paid the deposit and rent through May 2009, later stayed after informing Mangar of possible nonpayment due to mortgage issues, and Mangar did not return the deposit; she later pursued forcible entry and detainer, which was dismissed with Mangar’s consent on September 25, 2009.
- Approximately six months later, the Lyles sought the return of the deposit and double damages; Mangar filed a counterclaim for unpaid rent and late fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the landlord pursue unpaid rent before returning the deposit or providing a written statement? | Lyles contend the deposit must be returned before or prevent the landlord’s action for rent. | Mangar argues the separate rent claim may proceed notwithstanding deposit issues. | Yes; the rent claim may proceed alongside the deposit dispute. |
| Does failing to provide a written statement within 30 days trigger forfeiture and a presumption of wrongful withholding? | Lyles argue failure triggers forfeiture and wrongful withholding presumption against Mangar. | Mangar argues the withholding may be justified by a good-faith belief in entitlement to unpaid rent. | Failure triggers forfeiture of the right to withhold and creates a rebuttable presumption of wrongful withholding. |
| Is the presumption of wrongful withholding irrebuttable or rebuttable? | Lyles rely on presumption to obtain double damages. | Mangar can rebut with a good faith justification for withholding. | The presumption is rebuttable; good-faith entitlement to withhold can defeat double damages. |
| What is the final allocation of the deposits and rents given the withholding and the presumption issues? | Lyles seek return of deposit and possibly double damages; Mangar seeks rent and fees. | Mangar seeks unpaid rent plus late fees; deposit handling is governed by §6033 and §6034. | Lyles recover $900 deposit; Mangar recover $3,600 in unpaid rent and $100 in late fees; net result renders Lyles liable for $1,900. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbins v. Foley, 469 A.2d 840 (Me. 1983) (presumption of wrongful withholding is rebuttable by good faith belief)
- Karantza v. Salamone, 435 A.2d 1384 (Me. 1981) (good faith belief of legal entitlement defeats presumption)
- Costa v. Vogel, 2001 ME 131 (Me. 2001) (affirmation of appellate standards and case law context)
- Anastos v. Town of Brunswick, 2011 ME 41 (Me. 2011) (statutory ambiguity and legislative history considerations)