INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

§ 491A

Citation
§ 491A
Parent Document
Andrew Kaeding v. Karl Auleciems, Susanne Auleciems, 886 N.W.2d 658 (2016)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
2016-10-31
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4316783/andrew-kaeding-v-karl-auleciems... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (278)

Full Text

984 chars 
There is no question that [respondents] prevailed in the
              present lawsuit. While [respondents’] unjust enrichment claim
              was denied, that claim, like [appellants’] diminution of value
              claim, was added after appeal to the District Court. The heart
              of the present dispute is the two security deposits totaling
              $3,500.00. [Respondents] wanted the $3,500.00 returned.
              [Appellants] wanted to retain the $3,500.00 deposits and
              charge [respondents] an additional $1,425.00.          Having
              recovered 81.7% ($2,860.00 ÷ $3,500.00) of their security
              deposit and being awarded $1,000.00 in punitive damages,
              [respondents] clearly prevailed in the present lawsuit. The
              margin of [respondents’] victory becomes even higher
              considering [appellants] only recovered 13% of their claimed
              $4,925.00 ($640.00 ÷ $4,925.00).