NADHIR v. Salomon
957 N.E.2d 1221
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Nadhir, Battaglia, and Welch leased different units in a building in Evanston; 2009–2010 leases and security deposit of $2,625 with $38.77 interest accrued.
- They vacated June 30, 2010; a walk-through occurred; condition disputes arose about property state.
- Salomon described the property as severely damaged at move-out, with photos and a $75 city fine cited for trash; rent reductions for new tenants were noted.
- Defendants hired Karras to repair and paint, incurring substantial bills; July 20 email listed deductions as TBD, later amended on July 31 with some amounts filled.
- Defendants never returned any security deposit; plaintiffs sued August 24, 2010 in small-claims court alleging ERLTO violations; trial court initially granted directed finding then ruled on the merits after evidence.
- On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that only properly itemized deductions within 21 days could be offset against the deposit; damages not itemized could not be deducted, and setoffs/counterclaims were improperly handled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TBD deductions satisfy ERLTO's 21‑day itemization requirement | Nadhir et al.: must itemize with specific amounts within 21 days. | Sims/Salomon: TBD acceptable as reasonable under circumstances. | No; ERLTO requires specific dollar amounts within 21 days. |
| Whether damages itemized but exceeding deposit offset liability | Plaintiffs entitled to deposit recovery minus itemized damages. | Damages offset the deposit under ERLTO can negate liability. | Only properly itemized damages may be offset; excess damages do not negate liability if not properly itemized. |
| Whether defendants could use damages as a setoff without a counterclaim | Setoff not properly raised; must be counterclaim. | Damages argued as setoff/offset. | Setoff not permitted due to lack of counterclaim; defendants liable for failure to return deposit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mallah v. Barkauskas, 130 Ill. App. 3d 815 (1985) (proper course when damages not timely estimated: return deposit and sue for damages)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (2002) (deference to trial court findings on manifest weight standard)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill. 2d 455 (2010) (statutory interpretation: read statute as a whole; avoid superfluous terms)
- Hines v. Department of Public Aid, 221 Ill. 2d 222 (2006) (court may not read into statutes unexpressed exceptions or limitations)
- Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, 197 Ill. 2d 1 (2001) (caution against rewriting statutes to fit policy goals)