landlord tenant

The Indiana House passed a Bill concerning lease protections for victims of domestic violence. I was not aware of this legislation until today. Protective orders can remove the abuser from the home but this often leaves questions about responsibilities for the rent payment. The Indiana Judicial Center has the following information:

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard HB 1509 concerning lease protections for victims of domestic violence. Landlords would have to change locks within 24 hours upon request of the tenant when presented with a copy of a Protection Order or No Contact Order against the perpetrator. The bill provides the tenant must reimburse the landlord for the cost of the locks in certain cases. The landlord must also release a tenant from the lease, after 30 days written notice to the landlord, if a written copy of the Protection Order or No Contact Order is provided to the landlord and other conditions are met. Kerry Blomquist, Legal Counsel, Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, spoke in favor of the bill, which passed 6-0.

I posted here about a newspaper report of the new landlord-tenant legislation here. From the Indiana Judicial Center comes this update:

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard HB 1214 concerning landlord tenant law, which permits landlords to enter their property without notice in case of emergency, or without consent if the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the property. In other circumstances reasonable written or oral notice must be given to enter the rental unit. The legislation also provides a landlord may remove abandoned property if a reasonable person would believe it was abandoned without first placing it in a court approved storage facility for later reclamation. Rep. Pierce, author, gave the example of the “beer couch” that is left outside the property that is clearly abandoned. A member of the public testified placement of this kind of furniture into “court approved” facilities under present law, which are bonded, limits choices in many counties. The Indiana Apartment Association testified in favor of the bill. The Committee amended the definition of storage facility to permit the court to approve storage at “any location” increasing a court’s discretion. With this amendment, the bill passed 5-1.

Thanks to California Creditor's Rights & Business Bankruptcy Lawyer & Attorney for the article A Fly In The Ointment: Sale Of Property May Cut Off Landlord's Section 502(b)(6) Lease Rejection Claim For Future Rent. I have not seen anything about this issue in Indiana and so this was an interesting point.

I think I will need to follow this up with a comparison between the Virginia law applied and our Indiana law.

I moved the following out of the comments section to here:

As I see it, this was not a scam. The landlord did not consult with its attorney before altering the original contract. Indiana law (IC 32-31-3-9) sets out the uses for a security deposit as generally "....deposit paid by a tenant to the landlord or the landlord's agent to be held for all or a part of the term of the rental agreement to secure performance of any obligation of the tenant under the rental agreement" and then gives a bit more detail as:
I see nothing in the quoted statement of facts that makes the money paid anything other than a security deposit. Being a security deposit, the landlord must comply with Indiana's law on security deposits.

I wrote about security deposits and rental property in Landlord-Tenant matters: security deposits. You should probably read that to get a bit more detail on the subject than I am providing here. Under Indiana's security deposit statute, the landlord must provide an accounting of what was done with the security deposit. Not doing so left the landlord open to a lawsuit for the money (and attorney fees).

What I see is not a scam played upon an innocent landlord by a fraudster. What I do see are these scenarios or some variant on them:

1. The landlord lacked any experience with Indiana's security deposit law and did not seek any legal advice. Any lawyer could tell the landlord the problems with this deal.
   
2. The landlord chose to ignore Indiana's security deposit law and chose not to seek any legal advice - either through ignorance or the idea that doing so was a waste of money.

The tenant made the landlord follow the law on security deposits. A law that does not offer many exceptions but the landlord failed to use the exceptions available to it.

I would not suggest any landlord doing what this landlord did without talking to me first. Then I would have counseled the landlord how to avoid problems with the security deposit. Cost? Less than going to court and losing.