Landlord was not prohibited from filing an action for previously unidentified
damages to rental property. — Where tenants signed a lease agreement with landlord
to rent the subject property for a term of sixteen months, and where the parties
subsequently agreed to end the lease several months early, and where landlord sent
tenants an accounting that itemized deductions from tenants' damage deposit, and
where tenants filed a complaint contesting the amount landlord deducted from their
damage deposit and landlord filed a cross-claim stating that she was entitled to
additional damages beyond those itemized in the deductions, and where tenants
claimed that, 47-8-18(C) and 47-8-18(D) NMSA 1978 require a landlord to provide a
tenant with an itemized listing of all damages to property within thirty days of the date
the lease ends, and any claim for damages not then identified is forfeited, the district
court did not err in rejecting tenants' argument, because the plain language of 47-8-
18(C) and 47-8-18(D) NMSA 1978 establishes that only if a landlord fails to identify and
itemize all deductions from a tenant's damage deposit and send the remaining balance,
if any, to the tenant within thirty days, do they forfeit the right to assert any counterclaim
in any action brought to recover the deposit. The landlord in this case fully complied with
47-8-18(C) and 47-8-18(D) NMSA 1978, and therefore was not prohibited from filing the
cross-claim for damages to her property. Stodgell v. Weissman, 2025-NMCA-003, cert.
denied.
Itemization not required when deposit used to cover deficient rent. — A landlord
was entitled to apply the security deposit to the tenant's deficient rent payment without
sending a written itemization. Bruce v. Attaway, 1996-NMSC-030, 121 N.M. 755, 918
P.2d 341.