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/ ↗

Full Text

1,089 chars

[¶ 22] The District Court correctly determined that the Lyles were entitled to recover $900 — the amount of their security deposit — and that Mangar was entitled to recover $3,600 in unpaid rent plus $100 in late fees, which had the net effect of leav*873ing the Lyles responsible to Mangar for $2,800. The Superior Court incorrectly concluded on appeal that Mangar owed a $900 penalty in addition to forfeiting the right to withhold any portion of the $900 security deposit. See 14 M.R.S. § 6038(3) (“If a landlord fails to provide a written statement or to return the security deposit within the time specified in subsection 2, the landlord shall forfeit his right to withhold any portion of the security deposit.” (emphasis added)). Because Mangar did not bring a cross-appeal to raise this issue, however, see M.R.App. P. 2(a)(1), (b)(3), (4), we will not disturb the judgment ultimately entered by the Superior Court, see Costa v. Vogel, 2001 ME 131, ¶ 1 n. 1, 777 A.2d 827, which has the net effect of rendering the Lyles liable to Mangar for $1,900. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text