2008. Plaintiffs further agreed to vacate the premises on or before June 14, 2008 (Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2).
According to the Court's file, on or about May 22, 2008, due to Plaintiffs' noncompliance
with the Stipulation of Settlement, Defendant was awarded a Judgment against Plaintiffs in the
amount of $1,300 and a Warrant of Eviction was issued. Apparently, Plaintiffs remained in
possession of the premises until on or about July 14, 2009, one (1) month following the agreed
upon vacatur date. Defendant herein alleged in the counterclaim that he is entitled to the fair
rental value of the premises for the additional month as use and occupancy, or, in the alternative,
an offset against Plaintiffs' claim for the return of their security deposit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Notwithstanding the
various disputes raised at trial regarding payments purportedly made by Plaintiffs pursuant to the
Lease and/or the Stipulation of Settlement in the Summary Proceeding, the issue before this
Court is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their security deposit, and, if so, is
Defendant entitled to an offset against those funds. For the reasons discussed below, the Court
answers the former question in the affirmative and the latter question in the negative.
I.Plaintiffs' Claim for the Return of their Security Deposit
As stated previously, it was undisputed that Defendant's partner and co-Landlord Mr.
Leonard commingled Plaintiffs' security deposit and those funds remained in a personal bank
account until after Plaintiffs vacated the premises. The Court notes that although the Defendant
herein did [*3]not actually convert the security deposit, he is
nonetheless responsible for his partner's violation of the fiduciary relationship (See McMaster v.