Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 45A03-9404-CV-144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana
Citation643 N.E.2d 937
Docket NumberNo. 45A03-9404-CV-144,45A03-9404-CV-144
PartiesSteven MILEUSNICH, Appellant-Plaintiff v. NOVOGRODER CO., INC., Appellee-Defendant.
Decision Date06 December 1994

George S. Brasovan, Lucas, Holcomb & Medrea, Merrillville, for appellant.

Ray L. Szarmach, Szarmach & Fernandez, Hammond, for appellee.

STATON, Judge.

Steven Mileusnich ("Mileusnich") appeals from the trial court's judgment denying him relief. Mileusnich presents one restated issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in denying his claim for the return of his security deposit tendered pursuant to a lease.

We reverse and remand.

The facts most favorable to Mileusnich show that Mileusnich and Novogroder Co., Inc. ("Novogroder") entered into a one year lease agreement from July 29, 1993 through July 31, 1994. Mileusnich gave Novogroder a $525.00 security deposit when he signed the lease. Mileusnich attempted to take possession of the apartment on August 7, 1993 and August 11, 1993 but on both days was told that the apartment was not yet completed. On August 11, 1993, after being informed that the unit would be ready in three days, Mileusnich requested the return of his security deposit and tore up the lease. Mileusnich never took possession of the apartment. Two weeks later, Mileusnich sent a letter to Novogroder requesting his security deposit be returned to him at his lawyer's address. Novogroder ignored Mileusnich's request and relet the premises in mid-September. Mileusnich filed a complaint against Novogroder demanding the return of his security deposit plus attorney fees. Novogroder filed a counterclaim seeking damages for breach of lease. 1 The trial court denied any relief. This appeal ensued.

When reviewing an appeal from a negative judgment we must determine whether the judgment is contrary to law. McClure Oil Corp. v. Murray Equipment, Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 515 N.E.2d 546, 553, reh. denied. A judgment is contrary to law when the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion which is contrary to that reached by the trial court. Ashland Pipeline Co. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 483, 489, trans. denied. In determining whether a negative finding is contrary to law, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Clark v. Clark (1991), Ind.App., 578 N.E.2d 747, 749. We will reverse a judgment only if the evidence is without conflict and leads but to one conclusion, which is the opposite of that reached by the trial court. Grueninger Travel Service of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Inc. v. Lake County Trust Co. (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1034, 1038, reh. denied.

At the bench trial, Mileusnich argued that he was entitled to the return of his security deposit pursuant to the Security Deposits Statute ("Security Deposits Statute"). IND.CODE 32-7-5 et seq. (1993). Novogroder countered that Mileusnich's claim was premature because the rental agreement did not terminate until July 31, 1994 and the Security Deposits Statute was therefore not yet applicable. Because termination is key under the Security Deposits Statute, our first inquiry must be whether the lease actually terminated and if so, when.

A surrender of tenancy is a yielding of the tenancy to the owner of the reversion or remainder, wherein the tenancy is submerged and extinguished by the agreement. Grueninger, supra, at 1038. Surrender may be either express or by operation of law. Id. A surrender will arise by operation of law when the parties to a lease do some act so inconsistent with the subsisting relation of landlord and tenant as to imply they have both agreed to consider the surrender as effectual. Id. Mere yielding of the premises by the tenant to the landlord does not constitute surrender or acceptance. Hirsch v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Co. (1975), 166 Ind.App. 497, 336 N.E.2d 833, 839, reh. denied. There must be some decisive, unequivocal act by the landlord which manifests the lessor's acceptance of the surrender. Grueninger, supra, at 1039. Surrender and acceptance will be determined on a case-by-case basis by examining the acts of the respective parties in each case. Id.

This Court has examined a variety of factors when determining whether there has been a surrender and acceptance. In both Hirsch, supra, and Sigsbee v. Swathwood (1981) Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 789, this court determined that the landlord accepted the tenant's surrender when the landlord retook possession of the premises after the tenant vacated prior to the termination of the lease. This entry by the landlord ended the tenant's obligation to pay rent under the lease. Hirsch, supra, 336 N.E.2d at 837; Sigsbee, supra, at 800.

In Grueninger, the court determined that the acceptance of keys by the landlord alone did not amount to acceptance of surrender and noted that the subsequent reletting of the premises to a third party did not constitute acceptance of surrender by the landlord. 2 Grueninger, supra, at 1045. The court distinguished its conclusion from Hirsch where the landlord itself was the successor tenant not a third party. Id. The Grueninger court acknowledged that when a landlord retakes possession for its own purpose such constitutes an acceptance of surrender. Id.

Mileusnich contends that the lease terminated on August 11, 1993 when he tore it up and declined to take possession. Novogroder contends that the lease did not terminate until August 31, 1994 and that it never accepted Mileusnich's surrender.

This case offers a unique set of facts which distinguish it from Grueninger, supra, Hirsch, supra, and Sigsbee, supra. This action does not arise out of a claim for damages by Novogroder for breach of lease. Instead, Mileusnich is seeking only the return of his security deposit. Mileusnich never took physical possession of the premises but did make two attempts to move into the apartment and on both occasions was told that the apartment was not ready. 3 Novogroder did not initiate any contact with Mileusnich after the surrender on August 11, 1993. Novogroder did not send Mileusnich any rental notices or any other material evidencing a continued obligation under the lease. Furthermore, Novogroder did relet the premises after receiving Mileusnich's letter of September 1, 1993.

We conclude that Mileusnich surrendered the premises when he tore up the lease and that Novogroder accepted this surrender when it relet the premises in mid-September. 4 Accordingly, the lease agreement terminated on the day Novogroder relet the premises. 5 We must now determine whether Novogroder complied with the Security Deposits Statute after termination of the lease occurred.

The Security Deposits Statute requires that a landlord return an entire security deposit to the tenant except for any amount applied to accrued rent, damages suffered by the landlord as a result of the tenant's noncompliance with the law or rental agreement, and unpaid utility or sewer charges if required to be paid by the tenant. I.C. 32-7-5-12. The landlord must provide a tenant with written notice of the damages within forty-five days of the "termination of the rental agreement and delivery of possession." 6 Id. The tenant must provide the landlord with a mailing address in which to deliver this notice. Id. If the landlord fails to comply, the tenant is entitled to return of the entire security deposit and reasonable attorney fees. 7 Id.

Because we have determined that the lease terminated when Novogroder relet the premises, the forty-five day notice provision began to run at that time. The record reflects that Novogroder did not provide Mileusnich with an itemized list of damages as required by the statute or any other explanation for failure to return Mileusnich's deposit. The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due. Chasteen v. Smith (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 501, 502. Because no damages are due, we conclude that Novogroder is required to remit Mileusnich his full security deposit plus any attorney fees incurred. I.C. 32-7-5-12.

We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an award in favor of Mileusnich for the amount of his security deposit plus reasonable attorney fees.

HOFFMAN, J., concurs.

NAJAM, J., concurs in result without opinion.

1 Novogroder abandoned its counterclaim at the trial. Recor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Klotz v. Hoyt, 18S02-0807-CV-391.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 22, 2009
    ...854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006); Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); Hill v. Davis, 832 N.E.2d 544, 554-55 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Deckard Realty & Dev. v. Lykins, 688 N.E.2d 1319, 13......
  • Klotz v. Hoyt, 18A02-0707-CV-556.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 25, 2008
    ...notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.") (quoting Milensnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). "The notice requirement must be met before the Landlord can, recover not only those damages recoverable unde......
  • Marshall v. Clark Equipment Co., 79A05-9510-CV-420
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 1997
    ...reh'g denied, trans. denied. Therefore, Marshall has waived this issue for our review. See Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., 643 N.E.2d 937, 940 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), reh'g ...
  • Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc., 53A04-9408-CV-336
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 30, 1995
    ...until the date that the lease terminates. In addition, we note that Judge Staton reached a similar result in Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc. (1994), Ind.App., 643 N.E.2d 937, wherein he stated that "[b]ecause termination is key under the Security Deposits Statute, our first inquiry must ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT