Daniel M. Duram v. Nol Garrett Ploeger and Debbie Ploeger

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed rulings awarding landlords actual damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs arising from cleaning and repairs to a rented residence. The court held that the landlords forfeited the right to retain the tenant’s security deposit because they failed to provide the required notice and itemized charges within the statutory time limits, but that those violations did not bar recovery of actual damages exceeding the deposit. The court also declined to consider unsupported or newly raised appellate issues.

Holdings

1. The landlords forfeited their right to withhold Duram's security deposits because they failed to give him the statutory 24-hour opportunity to complete required cleaning and repairs and failed to provide the itemized list of damage and cleaning charges within 30 days after surrender of the premises.
2. The landlords' failure to comply with the security-deposit procedures did not preclude them from recovering actual damages for cleaning and repairs that exceeded the amount of the security deposit.
3. The award of attorney's fees and costs stands because Duram did not present an argument supported by authorities, statutes, and record citations as required by Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.
4. The court generally will not address an issue or new legal theory raised for the first time on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the landlords' failure to give Duram a 24-hour opportunity to perform cleaning and repairs and their failure to provide an itemized list of charges within 30 days forfeited their right to retain the security deposit.
2. Whether those statutory violations barred the landlords from recovering actual damages for cleaning and repairs exceeding the security deposit.
3. Whether the justice court's award of attorney's fees and costs should be reversed because Duram challenged the award without presenting a supported appellate argument.
4. Whether issues and legal theories raised for the first time on appeal should be considered.

Disposition

affirmed