Return of Security Deposit

I paid a security deposit at the beginning of my lease. Upon leaving the house was cleaned and all furniture etc was taken out. It was only after 2 1/2 months and a letter threatening to file suit would he send me my security deposit back. At that time I only recieved a small portion of the original deposit. Is there a law in Illinois about time requirements on returning a security deposit.

[HomeGuru]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dvd:
I paid a security deposit at the beginning of my lease. Upon leaving the house was cleaned and all furniture etc was taken out. It was only after 2 1/2 months and a letter threatening to file suit would he send me my security deposit back. At that time I only recieved a small portion of the original deposit. Is there a law in Illinois about time requirements on returning a security deposit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes there is. The law as referenced is the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Property Security Deposit Return Act (765 ILCS 710/1). Pursuant to this law, you are entitled to not only sue for your entire deposit but double the amount, plus court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

L had 30 days to provide you with disposition notice if there were any deductions, or 45 days to return the full deposit. Since he did not comply with either, you win. Hire an attorney and make him pay.


[This message has been edited by HomeGuru (edited August 19, 2000).]

Yes home guru is right to a point...it comes down to he said you said...he could have some phony reciepts BUT

Without YOU taking pictures of the apartment as you exited, and had a second copy made with the date stamped on them ..

You will probably lose......

2 or 3 disposable cameras and an extra set of prints ...may be the cheapest $40 you'll ever spend!

[HomeGuru]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peter:
Yes home guru is right to a point...it comes down to he said you said...he could have some phony reciepts BUT

Without YOU taking pictures of the apartment as you exited, and had a second copy made with the date stamped on them ..

You will probably lose......

2 or 3 disposable cameras and an extra set of prints ...may be the cheapest $40 you'll ever spend!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*************************************

HomeGuru response:
Peter, you have missed the point completely on this one. It does not matter what the landlord says, if the receipts are real or fake, if any photos were taken or even if the property was really clean when the tenant left. All these issues are moot because L did not follow the law with respect to the accounting and return of the security deposit. Even if T left the place in a mess requiring cleaning and repair costing thousands of dollars L must still return the entire deposit. (in fact double the deposit)

[maybe.... ok he did violate the law, and maybe didnt give a full accounting

But hey he could have been on vacation, or a sick parent or kid... or a relatvives house burned down or a tornado...

My lawyer says "the Law is the Law until reality sets in"

He may have violated the law but with really good reason, and a judge will throw it out and he would have lost even more money on a lawyer.

[HomeGuru]

[quote]Originally posted by peter:
[b][maybe.... ok he did violate the law, and maybe didnt give a full accounting

But hey he could have been on vacation, or a sick parent or kid... or a relatvives house burned down or a tornado...
****HomeGuru: the law does not state an exemption or waiver for these or any other reasons or excuses for not returning the deposit on time.

My lawyer says "the Law is the Law until reality sets in"
****HomeGuru: my lawyer says "the law is the law even when ignorance sets in."
Even if L was ignorant of the law, he is still required to adhere to it.

He may have violated the law but with really good reason, and a judge will throw it out and he would have lost even more money on a lawyer.
****HomeGuru: Money will not have been lost on a lawyer because T would prevail and the judgement would include court costs and reasonable attorneys fees.