Garcia v. Thong
119 N.M. 704, 895 P.2d 226 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New Mexico Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, an owner must provide a resident with an itemized written list of deductions from a damage deposit within 30 days of tenancy termination, regardless of whether the claimed damages exceed the deposit amount, or risk forfeiting rights to the deposit and to sue for damages.
Facts:
- Benjamin Thong rented an apartment from Judy Garcia.
- As part of the rental agreement, Thong paid a $200.00 damage deposit to Garcia.
- Thong terminated his tenancy and moved out of the apartment.
- Garcia did not refund Thong's damage deposit after he moved out.
- Garcia did not provide Thong with a written statement accounting for the damage deposit.
Procedural Posture:
- Judy Garcia filed suit in magistrate court against Benjamin Thong seeking $1,763.05 for damages to the apartment.
- Benjamin Thong denied responsibility for the damages and counter-claimed for the return of his damage deposit.
- The magistrate court entered judgment for Garcia in the amount of $908.00.
- Thong appealed the magistrate court's decision to the district court.
- The district court entered judgment for Garcia in the amount of $1,315.00, agreeing with Garcia's interpretation that the itemization requirement did not apply if claimed damages exceeded the deposit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner, under the New Mexico Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, forfeit the right to withhold any portion of a damage deposit or to file suit for damages if they fail to provide the resident with an itemized written list of deductions within 30 days of tenancy termination, even when the claimed damages exceed the deposit?
Opinions:
Majority - Frost, Justice
Yes, an owner forfeits the right to withhold any portion of a damage deposit or to file suit for damages if they fail to provide the resident with an itemized written list of deductions within 30 days of tenancy termination, even when the claimed damages exceed the deposit. The court found the language of NMSA 1978, § 47-8-18(C) to be unambiguous, clearly requiring an itemized list of deductions and the balance, if any, within 30 days of termination or departure, whichever is later. This provision means the owner must provide the itemized list regardless of whether a balance remains to be refunded to the tenant. This interpretation is consistent with the Act's policy to "simplify, clarify, modernize" landlord-tenant law and specifically addresses the concern of "unexplained retention of damage deposits by landlords." The court cited T.W.I.W., Inc. v. Rhudy for the principle that the Act, being remedial, should be liberally construed. The court rejected Garcia's argument that the itemization requirement only applied if the claimed damages were less than the deposit, stating it would be "absurd" and "unreasonable" to require an explanation for partial retention but allow full retention without any explanation. Citing Aztec Well Servicing Co. v. Property & Casualty Ins. Guar. Ass’n, the court emphasized that statutory interpretation must align with legislative intent and avoid absurd results. Therefore, because Garcia failed to comply with Section 47-8-18(C), she forfeited her right to withhold any portion of the deposit or to file suit for damages as provided by Section 47-8-18(D). Thong is entitled to a return of his damage deposit, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
Concurring - Ransom, J.
Justices Ransom concurred in the majority opinion.
Concurring - Minzner, J.
Justices Minzner concurred in the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the mandatory obligations of landlords in New Mexico regarding damage deposits under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. By adopting a strict interpretation of the 30-day itemization requirement, the court fortifies consumer protection for tenants, preventing landlords from circumventing their statutory duties by merely claiming damages in excess of the deposit. This ruling underscores the Act's broader goal of modernizing landlord-tenant law and promoting transparency, ensuring that tenants receive timely and detailed explanations for any deposit retention. The decision sets a clear precedent for strict compliance, likely leading to more consistent enforcement and greater accountability for owners throughout the state.
