Section 34-18-11
- Citation
- Section 34-18-11
- Parent Document
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-02-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5138732/tambor-v-miller/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
Full Text
853 charsWe note here that the security deposit given by Daniel was $400. In accordance with G.L.1956 § 34-18-19(c), the trial justice properly determined that the Millers were hable for twice that amount, namely $800. However, instead of rightfully awarding the whole amount only to Daniel, for some inexplicable reason, the trial justice divided it into two equal sums and awarded those separate sums to Rani and Daniel. In addition, the trial justice equally divided the $6,200 award for attorney’s fees between both Rani and Daniel. This was error. In this wrongful eviction action, Rani was not entitled to receive any damages, security deposit or attorney’s fees. Instead, Daniel should have been awarded the entire security deposit and whatever portion of the original attorney’s fees award that was attributable solely to counsel’s representation of him.