Miller v. Geels

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the Security Deposit Statute provides special protection for security deposits but does not limit the freedom of landlords and tenants to contract regarding an obligation for cleaning the premises
• holding that a person with full knowledge of the facts and aware of his rights who nevertheless stands by and acquiesces in conduct inconsistent with those rights may be estopped from subsequently asserting those rights
• Security Deposit statute not intended to limit landlord’s and tenant’s right to contractually define what constitutes “other damages” under statute
• tenants acquiesced in landlord’s deduction of cleaning expenses from security deposit knowing a joint inspection had not occurred under the contract
• “[A] rental unit which tenants are required to clean under a lease agreement but which the tenants have failed to clean has been damaged. . . . The landlord may pursue a claim for cleaning expenses under the lease.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).