of others is quite clear. You cannot be others. There is no ambiguity there.Mr. Knowitall;740540]Digressing for a moment, the Michigan eavesdropping statute is poorly constructed, but I think the interpretation followed by the Michigan court's is less problematic than an interpretation that says you would be "eavesdropping" by recording a conversation between yourself and one other person on the basis that it's the conversation "of others",
Wile the case cited does state that, I do not agree that is what the statute is saying.In relation to security deposits, the text of the statute does support the court's interpretation, and it actually makes sense to distinguish when a landlord can act to collect money from a tenant when he's not holding the tenant's money, as opposed to putting him on a short schedule to return the tenant's money if he cannot make a timely claim against it.
within 45 days...may commence and action...for damages which he has claimed OR in lieu thereof return the balance of the security deposit held by him.54.613 Action for damages; retention of security deposit; waiver.Sec. 13.
(1) Within 45 days after termination of the occupancy and not thereafter the landlord may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a money judgment for damages which he has claimed or in lieu thereof return the balance of the security deposit held by him to the tenant or any amount mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties. A landlord shall not be entitled to retain any portion of a security deposit for damages claimed unless he has first obtained a money judgment for the disputed amount or filed with the court satisfactory proof of an inability to obtain service on the tenant or
failure...to comply with this section constitutes a waiver of ALL claimed damages and [read as plus but obviously cannot apply unless there has been a retention of some or all of the security deposit] double the amount...retained. It says nothing that would allow it to be interpreted it was addressing ONLY the damages of no more than the amount of the deposit held by the landlord.. Failure of the landlord to comply fully with this section constitutes waiver of all claimed damages and makes him liable to the tenant for double the amount of the security deposit retained.
Based on the construction of the rest of the LTRA, it is clear that all actions required of either the landlord or tenant are quite precise and intended to impose strict time limits upon all actions. There is no reason to believe the legislature did not intend to also impose a precise and very limited time requirement for the landlord to act in making a claim for damages, whether there was a security deposit involved or not.
Along with that, as many states play follow the leader with laws and the intent, it is not uncommon for a state to impose a much shorter sol upon actions involving landlord tenant issues and specifically in damages claims issues.
what I find equally problematic, although unrelated to the case at hand is this:
Based on that statement, a landlord simply cannot retain any amount of the deposit based on damages, exclusive of rent due unless they first obtain a judgment. How can that even be put into practice since, if the landlord is precluded from retaining a deposit without first having a judgment but the law requires they refund the deposit within an amount of time that would not allow the landlord to obtain a judgment. That means if there are damages (exclusive of rent due), the landlord must first refund the deposit and then sue to obtain a judgment and then collect on that judgment. Kind of defeats the purpose of the deposit, doesn't it?A landlord shall not be entitled to retain any portion of a security deposit for damages claimed unless he has first obtained a money judgment for the disputed amount or filed with the court satisfactory proof of an inability to obtain service on the tenant or unless:



