Golia, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part, and voting to reverse the judgment and award plaintiff the sum of $1,100). In this small claims action in which claimant is seeking the return of her security deposit, it is undisputed that at the commencement of the tenancy she deposited $1,100 as security with defendant landlord, and her cotenant also deposited an equal amount. They then both jointly entered into possession of the premises.
After several years, the cotenant moved out and demanded the return of his security deposit from defendant. In fact, the cotenant sent defendant a letter in which he demanded the return of his $1,100 security deposit. That letter was entered into evidence, and defendant acknowledged that he did not return that money to the cotenant and told the cotenant to first talk to plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, it would constitute an unjust enrichment for this court to direct defendant to refund the cotenant’s security deposit to plaintiff in addition to her own security deposit to which she is entitled, leaving the landlord still liable to the cotenant to refund the cotenant’s portion of the security deposit under this tenancy. For me, it is inappropriate to expose defendant to liability as to the $1,100 security deposit of the cotenant, which is the same money that the landlord is being directed to pay to plaintiff. What recourse would the landlord then have is not answered by the majority.