it doesn't matter if it he is withholding money or seeking it be paid from the bond:, he has only a right to seek repayment of justified damages.adjusterjack;932872]There's the rub. The landlord doesn't have anything to withhold. He didn't collect a security deposit so there's no security deposit to withhold. He submits his bills to the bonding company.
and just like a bail bond, when the defendant skips (damages) the court demand payment from the bond company. Here, the landlord is in the place of the court and the defendant the tenant and the bondsman, the bondsman. The landlord cannot seek payment without justified damages just as a court cannot demand payment of the bond without the defendant causing damages (skipping).Think of it like bail. The court doesn't hold the defendant's money when the defendant buys a bail bond. The court has no obligation to return any money to the defendant or justify to the defendant what it collects from the bonding company when the defendant skips.
If a court sought payment of the bond without a valid basis, yes, the defendant would have standing to object to the call of the bond.
. the landlord did NOT waive the deposit. He did not require it be paid in cash but he definitely did not waive it. The money behind the bond is the security deposit and he cannot make a claim without a valid basis to do so. Since the money effectively still comes from the tenant, there is no difference in the actions required between the landlord and tenant.But that's exactly what the bonding company ends up doing. The landlord waives the security deposit
but state law demands that any payment landlord receives for damages be based in fact.The tenant has a contract with the bonding company where he agrees to reimburse the bonding company for any money it pays to the landlord.
I don't think so. I believe it is still between the landlord and the tenant. Claiming it is between the bond agent and the landlord, well, what if the damages exceeded the bond?Granted, I haven't seen a copy of the Suredeposit bond form so I can't say what, if any, the process is for disputing the amount of the damages other than it would be between the tenant and the bonding company and the landlord would be out of the picture.
unless you find one for Michigan don't bother. We do things our way regardless what anybody else does. Its the michigan way.I found an appellate case in Ohio which supports my contention:
but in the Ohio case the tenants were seeking a refund of what they agreed to were non-refundable fees. They did not seek a refund of a claim of damages nor did they argue a right to dispute possible damages, because it was not involved in their case.
{¶2} On December 15, 2000, appellants entered into a 12-month lease with appellee for a rental unit in Arrowhead Station located in Westerville, Ohio. The lease provided for a monthly rental fee of $840 due by the first of each month. The lease incorporated an addendum referred to as a checklist that provided for a $75 "Redecorating Fee" and a $300 "Pet Fee." The checklist indicated that those fees were nonrefundable and that $40 of the stated monthly rent was "Pet Rent." Appellee also required a security deposit that consisted of a refundable deposit equal to one month's rent. As an alternative to the conventional security deposit, however, appellants were given the option of purchasing a security deposit bond referred to as "SureDeposit" from Bankers Insurance Company ("BIC"). According to theSureDeposit Bond Acknowledgement ("Acknowledgement"), signed by appellants, in exchange for a nonrefundable purchase price of $437.50, appellants had security bond coverage in the amount of $2,500.00.
{¶3} In addition to incorporating the checklist, the lease also incorporated the Acknowledgement and noted: "Tenant has deposited with Landlord the sum ofSureDeposit Dollars ($0.00) * * * for the purpose of insuring performance by Tenant of all obligations of Tenant as provided in this Lease." For administering the program, BIC paid appellee 20 percent of all bond premiums.
{¶4} Appellants terminated the lease on October 31, 2001, which was two months prior to the lease's expiration. On June 18, 2003, appellants filed the complaint herein seeking a return of the above-described fees.I see this sort of situation no differently than if there was an escrow account rather than the bond. Since tenant is ultimately responsible for the claim for damages, denial of their right to dispute a claim of damages by the landlord would be inequitable and the law doesn't like inequities.Regarding the SureDeposit, the trial court concluded appellants voluntarily chose to purchase a bond in lieu of making a security deposit, and therefore, the $437.50 premium paid for the bond was not a deposit as defined by R.C. 4321.01(E).
It would also result in an unjust enrichment to the landlord.

