Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Citation
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Parent Document
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-12-15
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144930/lyle-v-mangar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
- Lyle v. Mangar, 36 A.3d 867 (2011)
Full Text
733 charsSAUFLEY, C.J. [¶ 1] In this case, we are asked to interpret the statutes that govern security deposits on residential rental units, 14 M.R.S. §§ 6031-6039 (2010), for the purpose of answering two questions: (1) may a landlord proceed on a claim to recover unpaid rent without first returning a tenant’s security deposit or providing a timely written statement of the reasons for retaining it, see id. § 6033, and (2) does the failure to provide such a written statement render the landlord’s withholding of the deposit irrebuttably wrongful in every instance, thereby requiring the imposition of double damages, costs, and attorney fees, see id. § 6034. We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.