Reversing judgment of trial court that landlord not entitled to rent and damages because of failure to provide itemized list of damages

To access case, press here

Appellant-plaintiff Stan Klotz appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint for breach of lease against appellees-defendants Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann.1 Klotz contends that the trial court erroneously concluded that he was not entitled to rent and damages because he allegedly failed to provide an itemized list of damages to Hoyt and Kornmann within the forty-five-day statutory timeframe.

Conclusion (slip op. at 2): Finding that Klotz was not required to comply with the forty-five-day timeframe to be entitled to back due rent payments and that, for the purpose of damages and the security deposit, he did comply with the relevant statutes, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to enter judgment in Klotz’s favor in the amount of $6,000.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 6-7): A landlord merely seeking to recover back rent . . . should not be required to provide a list of itemized damages to the property, which is irrelevant to the amount of rent contractually owed by the tenant . . . [the security deposit] statute in no way affects or hampers the landlord’s ability and right to sue the tenants for the rent that they are contractually obligated to pay.

FRIEDLANDER, J. and ROBB, J., concurring: I concur in the result . . . because I agree that the lease agreement was terminated on . . . and that Klotz provided an itemized list of damages within forty-five days of this termination. However, I am concerned that allowing a landlord to provide this notice on the day of a hearing contravenes the purpose of the notice requirement . . .