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
770 chars[¶ 2] Robert and Sandra Lyle appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior *869Court (York County, Fritzsehe, J.) affirming small claims judgments entered by the District Court (Springvale, Douglas, J.). The District Court found in favor of the Lyles on their complaint to recover the amount of their security deposit and in favor of landlord Donna Michele Mangar on her complaint for unpaid rent and late fees. The Lyles contend that Mangar’s competing small claims action should not have been permitted to proceed until she returned their security deposit and that they were entitled to double damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 6033(3) and 6034(2) because Mangar wrongfully withheld the security deposit. We affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND