Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Klotz v. Hoyt

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 2008No. 18A02-0707-CV-556Published

1ConcurrenceRobb, Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority because I agree that the lease agreement was terminated on February 20, 2007, 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, which is “to inform the tenant that the landlord is keeping the security and for what reason, as well as to allow that tenant an opportunity to challenge the costs for which the deposit is being used.” Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. National Lead Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Lae v. HouseholderIndiana Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Duchon v. RossIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Pinnacle Properties v. SaulkaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. Raider v. PeaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API