La. R.S. 9:3251 requires that the landlord provide a written itemized statement which includes an accounting for the retained proceeds and a statement of reasons.1
An oral explanation or itemized statement will not suffice absent exceptional circumstances such as “bad faith” litigation.2 If the landlord’s itemization is found to lack specificity, there will be a “willful failure” under La. R.S. 9:3252, and penalties against the landlord are appropriate.3 An adequate itemization must include a categorical specification that reasonably apprises the tenant of the nature of the elements of wear and tear, separately lists each aspect of wear and tear, and relates the damage to “unreasonable wear”.4
The landlord’s written itemization must be sent to the tenant or the tenant’s duly authorized agent.5 Noncompliance with the written itemization requirement subjects the landlord to the additional penalty of the greater of $300 or two times the amount wrongfully deducted as well as costs and fees.6
A bona fide dispute as to the amount of the security deposit or tenant breach of lease obligations will not release the landlord from strict compliance with the statute’s written itemization requirement.7 Specious, arbitrary, or unjustified reasons for retaining a deposit, regardless of how specific, can never satisfy La. R.S. 9:3251.8
When landlords fail to provide an adequate itemization, claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law should also be considered.9
- 1O’Brien v. Becker, 332 So. 2d 563 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1976).
- 2Ball v. Fellom, 406 So. 2d 781 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1981); Flynn v. Cent. Realty of La., Inc., 338 So. 2d 774 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1976).
- 3See, e.g. Woodery v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 389 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1988); O’Brien, 332 So. 2d 563 (no itemization, and the receipts, primarily for painting materials, could not be considered “unusual wear” after four years of occupancy); Provosty v. Guss, 350 So. 2d 1239 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1977) (sufficient specificity); Garb v. Clayton-Kent Builders, 307 So. 2d 813 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1975) (landlord’s written statement that he was retaining a tenant’s $50 deposit to “clean and vacuum the apartment” was held to be sufficient).
- 4See Woodery, 527 So. 2d 389. But see Garb, 307 So. 2d at 815.
- 5Altazin v. Pirello, 391 So. 2d 1267 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1980).
- 6Nwokolo v. Torrey, 31,412 (La. App. 2 Cir. 01/20/99), 726 So. 2d 1055.
- 7Trapani v. Morgan, 426 So. 2d 285, 291 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1983); Ball, 406 So. 2d at 783; Altazin, 391 So. 2d 1267.
- 8See Altazin, 391 So. 2d 1267; Calix v. Whitson, 306 So. 2d 62 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1974).
- 9La. R.S. 51:1401, et seq. For further discussion of LUTPA in the lease context, see Section 11.6.1.