Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Citation
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Parent Document
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-12-15
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144930/lyle-v-mangar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
Full Text
795 chars[¶8] At a consolidated trial held on December 10, 2010, the Lyles indicated that they were no longer seeking to recover their last month’s rent payment. Based on the testimony of the three parties and the documentary evidence, the District Court entered a judgment on Mangar’s complaint awarding Mangar $3,700, representing four months of unpaid rent at $900 per month and $100 in late fees. On the Lyles’ complaint, the court awarded judgment in the amount of $900, reflecting the amount of the Lyles’ security deposit. The court denied the Lyles’ request for double damages, attorney fees, and costs because it found that Mangar had not wrongfully retained the deposit but had instead retained it in good faith belief that she could do so to cover the Lyles’ unpaid rent. See 14 M.R.S. § 6034.