Indiana law requires landlords to send tenants an itemised damage list within 45 days of moving out. (AI image)
An Indiana landlord who won $6,200 from a former tenant over unpaid rent and damage to an apartment will now receive only $2,400 after a state appeals court ruled on Thursday that the property owner had failed to follow an important requirement under state law. On February 3, Skiles took the matter to a small claims court, seeking unpaid rent and compensation for cleaning and repairs. The landlord submitted expenses totalling $13,183 for labour and supplies. Instead, it ordered Tuttle to pay $2,400 in outstanding rent, $2,900 for repairs and $900 for dumpster rental. The total came to $6,200, excluding court costs.
He reported that the kitchen sink and bathroom toilet were damaged and could not be used.
The landlord had not sent the tenant a written list explaining the damage and the money being claimed for repairs, according to the judgment . Skiles found food rotting in pots, pans and appliances when he entered the apartment, according to the court’s judgment. During a hearing in May, he said Tuttle had violated the lease by smoking inside the apartment and causing damage beyond normal wear and tear.
The court ruled that this failure prevented the landlord from recovering repair and cleaning costs, although the unpaid rent was still due. Spoiled food and milk had also been left inside the refrigerator. However, the trial court did not award the full amount. During the trial, Tuttle’s lawyer asked Skiles whether he had returned the security deposit. Skiles replied, “I did not. When asked whether he had provided a notice explaining why the deposit was being withheld, along with an itemised list of damages, Skiles again answered, “I did not. This admission became central to the appeal. The appeals court explained that failure to follow the notice requirement prevents a landlord from recovering money for physical damage to the rented property. However, it does not prevent the landlord from claiming unpaid rent.
Because the landlord had not raised it during the original trial, the judges declined to consider that argument. TRS99 LLC argued on appeal that there was no evidence Tuttle had supplied a mailing address in writing.