FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Citation
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Parent Document
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-11-05
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1993882/furlan-v-farrar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
- FURLAN v. Farrar, 982 A.2d 581 (2009)
Full Text
616 charsThe trial justice supportably found that the lease term began on September 1, 2006. Thus, $800 of the sum of $1600 that was sent by plaintiff to defendant on August 25 was properly used as September’s rent. Moreover, in view of the provisions of the statutes cited in the preceding paragraph, defendant correctly maintains that plaintiff owed him an additional $800 on October 1, 2006 for October’s rent. In view of the fact that plaintiff failed to send him an additional check, defendant was entitled to deduct an appropriate amount from plaintiffs security deposit for unpaid, accrued rent. Section 34 — 18—19(b).