Showing 41–60 of 211 results
. Kirkendall also alleged that Temple demanded a security deposit of one and one-half times one month’s rent in violation of the law. Security Deposit Act, D.C. Law 1-48, § 3(b), 1976 D.C. Stat. 13. Temple...
security deposit to the tenants or notify them of the landlord’s intention to withhold
(2021); see also D.C. Code § 42-3502.17(a) (2020 Repl.) (“Security deposits shall
against Mr. Pourbabai: In addition to a return of their $5,000 security deposit, they
made a security deposit of $1,700 and two $1,970 rent payments during her tenancy,
$5,000 security deposit at move-in, and Mr. Pourbabai in turn agreed to return that
security deposit, and that such failure was done in bad faith. We agree with that assessment.
when it failed to return the $38,000 portion of its security deposit that was due to be
retained her security deposit, therefore, is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction2.
security deposit—minus any amounts owed—“within forty-five (45) days” of the tenants vacating the property.
be collected pursuant to the Security Deposit Act,” codified at 14 D.C.M.R. §§ 308 9
$100,000 in attorney’s fees and costs—all in pursuit of a $5,000 security deposit
$38,000 security deposit was a material breach that justified its termination of the lease agreement in July 2020.
lease entirely, and then seek the return of its security deposit in a suit for damages, as it did.
Finally, Tenant alleged that Ms. Shipe improperly retained his security deposit.
$38,000 security deposit after several months of demands constituted a material
refund. Elevate asserted that Hto7’s failure was a material breach and demanded the return of its entire security deposit.
jurisdiction was limited to adjudicating the nonpayment of interest on security deposits.
...Subtenant is not in privity with the lease between landlord and URS; landlord was entitled to the forfeited deposit that its tenant, not subtenant, had agreed to pay. Indeed, the only record evidence implicating subtenant and URS’s security deposit...
for the trial court to consider whether Hto7’s failure to return the $38,000 security deposit was a material breach.