Background
In October 2020, DaNae Cordie and David Kawasaki began renting a residential property in West Fargo, North Dakota from Meridian Property Management, LLC. A dispute over dog waste removal fees arose in late September 2023, and Cordie stopped paying rent for October 2023. Meridian served a three-day notice to vacate, pursued an eviction action, and obtained a judgment that included a $1,000 early termination fee under the lease. Cordie vacated the property on November 1, 2023, and returned the key fobs on November 2, 2023. The lease by its terms ran through the end of December 2023.
On December 19, 2023, Meridian mailed Cordie an itemized list of damages totaling $7,665.92, which included rent and related charges for November and December 2023 even though Cordie had already been evicted. Meridian then filed a small claims action seeking $4,673.44—representing claimed damages offset by the $2,125 security deposit. Cordie removed the case to district court and moved for summary judgment, arguing that Meridian’s late itemization barred any damage recovery and that collecting both an early termination fee and post-eviction rent constituted an impermissible double recovery.
After a bench trial, the district court ruled in Cordie’s favor on the double-recovery issue, holding that the early termination fee was a liquidated damages clause that precluded Meridian from also collecting post-eviction rent. The court ruled against Cordie on the itemization-deadline issue, finding she suffered no prejudice from the late notice because the underlying damages exceeded the security deposit. The court awarded Meridian $2,116.56 in property repair damages and $8,089.50 in attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04, which mandates fee awards when a defendant removes a case from small claims court. Final judgment totaled $10,299.42. Cordie appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed on all issues and remanded solely for the district court to determine and award Meridian’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the appeal. On the itemization-deadline question, the court held that N.D.C.C. § 47-16-07.1(3)(c) is not ambiguous simply because it prescribes no remedy for a landlord’s failure to timely mail the itemized damages list. Consistent with its established rule that statutory violations lacking an express remedy are evaluated under a prejudice standard, the court held that Cordie suffered no prejudice because Meridian had reasonable justification to withhold the entire security deposit—actual damages exceeded the deposit amount—regardless of the timing of the notice.
On the attorney’s fees challenge, the court declined to reach whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment on the double-recovery issue. Although Cordie ultimately prevailed on that issue at trial, she failed to object when the district court gave her fourteen days to challenge the fee request. Having forfeited the argument below, she could not raise it for the first time on appeal. Similarly, the court held Cordie’s unconscionability challenge to the lease terms was abandoned: she raised it at summary judgment but did not meaningfully pursue it at trial or in post-trial briefing, and the district court never addressed it in its judgment order.
Because N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04 requires the Supreme Court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing appellee when the defendant appeals a removed small-claims judgment, and because Meridian had not yet submitted fee documentation at the appellate level, the court remanded to the district court to take evidence of and award those fees.
Key Takeaways
- When North Dakota’s security-deposit statute provides no express remedy for a landlord’s failure to timely mail the itemized damages list, courts apply a prejudice standard — a tenant who cannot show actual harm from the late notice cannot defeat the landlord’s damage claim.
- A tenant who prevails on a substantive issue at trial but fails to object to the landlord’s attorney’s fee petition in the district court waives the right to challenge the fee amount on appeal.
- An argument raised at summary judgment but not meaningfully pursued at trial or in post-trial briefing is abandoned and not preserved for appellate review.
- Under N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04, a defendant who removes a small-claims case to district court and then appeals an adverse judgment triggers a mandatory appellate attorney’s fee award for the prevailing plaintiff-appellee.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important clarification for North Dakota landlords and tenants on the consequences of a missed itemization deadline. Unlike states such as New York and Massachusetts that expressly forfeit a landlord’s right to retain any portion of the deposit upon an untimely notice, North Dakota’s statute contains no such sanction. The court’s ruling confirms that the absence of an express penalty is not a drafting ambiguity but a deliberate legislative choice, and that tenants must demonstrate concrete prejudice — not merely a procedural violation — to defeat an otherwise legitimate damage claim.
The decision also carries a practical warning for tenants who remove small-claims cases to district court: the fee-shifting statute that follows them through trial continues through any appeal, and failing to timely object to a fee petition in the trial court forfeits the ability to contest the amount later. Attorneys representing tenants in removed small-claims disputes should treat the post-judgment fee-objection window as a critical deadline.