Guzman v. McDonald, C-1036
| Decision Date | 11 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1036,C-1036 |
| Citation | 194 Colo. 160,570 P.2d 532 |
| Parties | Eleanor GUZMAN and Diane French, Petitioners, v. Larry McDONALD and Larene McDonald, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, H. Clay Whitlow, Denver, for petitioners.
No appearance on behalf of respondents.
Myron A. Clark, Kent B. Connally, John B. Kusic, Robert A. Lubowitz, Denver, for amicus curiae, Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver.
We granted certiorari to review the trial court's refusal to award treble damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of Colorado's Security Deposit Act. Section 38-12-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973.
Petitioners Guzman and French (tenants) leased residential property owned by respondents McDonald (landlords). After the tenants vacated the premises, the landlords, within thirty days of the termination, gave them written notice of their intent to retain the $150 security deposit. Section 38-12-103(1), C.R.S.1973. A list of the specific reasons for the retention was included in this written notice. Tenants thereafter gave the landlords the required seven-day notice of their intent to sue for the return of their deposit, then filed suit in the county court. Section 38-12-103(3)(a), C.R.S.1973.
The trial court found that the landlords sustained actual damage to their premises beyond normal wear and tear in the amount of $35.75. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of tenants in the amount of $114.25. The trial court, however, refused to assess treble damages, attorneys' fees, or court costs against the landlords. On appeal, the superior court affirmed on the basis that failure of the landlords to return the security deposit after having given notice of retention does not automatically establish a "willful" retention under the Act.
Tenants challenge the lower court's construction of the statute. They rely on our decision in Turner v. Lyon, 189 Colo. ---, 539 P.2d 1241 (1975). The statutory provision at issue in Turner, as well as in this case, is section 38-12-103(3)(a), C.R.S.1973, which provides:
"The willful retention of a security deposit in violation of this section shall render a landlord liable for treble the amount of that portion of the security deposit wrongfully withheld from the tenant, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs . . . ."
In Turner, this court held that:
Tenants concede that the Act requires proof of two elements before a landlord is liable for the statutory awards of damages, fees, and costs: (1) willful retention, and (2) wrongful detention. They rely on Turner, supra, for the proposition that "willful" means deliberate. Tenants further contend that a "wrongful" detention is established by a finding that the extent of damage did not amount to the deposit which the landlords retained. They contend that even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mau v. E. P. H. Corp.
...statute have been awarded often, Torres v. Portillos, supra; Martinez v. Steinbaum, Colo., 623 P.2d 49 (1981); Guzman v. McDonald, 194 Colo. 160, 570 P.2d 532 (1977); Heatherridge Management Company v. Benson, 192 Colo. 190, 558 P.2d 435 (1976); Turner v. Lyon, 189 Colo. 234, 539 P.2d 1241 ......
-
Rohrbaugh v. Estate of Stern
...formulae for imposing punitive damages for a landlord's improper withholding of a tenant's security deposit. See Guzman v. McDonald, 194 Colo. 160, 570 P.2d 532 (1977); Turner v. Lyon, 189 Colo. 234, 539 P.2d 1241 (1975); Cohen v. Meola, 37 Conn.Supp. 27, 429 A.2d 152 (Conn.Super.Ct.1980), ......
-
Roeder v. Nolan
...that his retention of a deposit was not "wrongful," Martinez v. Steinbaum, Colo., 623 P.2d 49, 54 (1981); Guzman v. McDonald, 194 Colo. 160, 162, 570 P.2d 532, 533 (1977), or creating a presumption of bad faith on the part of the landlord who wrongfully withholds. Diamond Oaks Terrace Apart......
-
Torres v. Portillos
...meet his burden of proving that the deposit was not retained "wrongfully" or "in bad faith." Section 38-12-103(3)(b); Guzman v. McDonald, 194 Colo. 160, 570 P.2d 532 (1977); see Martinez v. Steinbaum, Colo., 623 P.2d 49 (1981). He also argues that section 13-17-101(3), under which a landlor......
-
Survey of Colorado Landlord and Tenant Law
...CRS § 38-12-103(3)(a) and (b). See, Martinez, supra, note 48; Turner v. Lyon, 539 P.2d 1241, 1243 (Colo. 1975). 67. Guzman v. McDonald, 570 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1977). 68. CRS § 38-12-103 (7). Anderson v. Rose-brook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987); Heather-ridge Management Co. v. Benson, 558 P.2d 435......