(1) A landlord shall, within one month after the termination of a lease or surrender and acceptance of the premises, whichever occurs last, return to the tenant the full security deposit deposited with the landlord by the tenant, unless the lease agreement specifies a longer period of time, but not to exceed sixty days. No security deposit shall be retained to cover normal wear and tear. In the event that actual cause exists for retaining any portion of the security deposit, the landlord shall provide the tenant with a written statement listing the exact reasons for the retention of any portion of the security deposit. When the statement is delivered, it shall be accompanied by payment of the difference between any sum deposited and the amount retained. The landlord is deemed to have complied with this section by mailing said statement and any payment required to the last-known address of the tenant. Nothing in this section shall preclude the landlord from retaining the security deposit for nonpayment of rent, abandonment of the premises, or nonpayment of utility charges, repair work, or cleaning contracted for by the tenant.
(2) The failure of a landlord to provide a written statement within the required time specified in subsection (1) of this section shall work a forfeiture of all his rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit under this section.
(3) (a) The willful retention of a security deposit in violation of this section shall render a landlord liable for treble the amount of that portion of the security deposit wrongfully withheld from the tenant, together with reasonable attorney fees and court costs; except that the tenant has the obligation to give notice to the landlord of his intention to file legal proceedings a minimum of seven days prior to filing said action.
(b) In any court action brought by a tenant under this section, the landlord shall bear the burden of proving that his withholding of the security deposit or any portion of it was not wrongful.
(4) Upon cessation of his interest in the dwelling unit, whether by sale, assignment, death, appointment of a receiver, or otherwise, the person in possession of the security deposit, including but not limited to the landlord, his agent, or his executor, shall, within a reasonable time:
(a) Transfer the funds, or any remainder after lawful deductions under subsection (1) of this section, to the landlord's successor in interest and notify the tenant by mail of such transfer and of the transferee's name and address; or
(b) Return the funds, or any remainder after lawful deductions under subsection (1) of this section, to the tenant.
(5) Upon compliance with subsection (4) of this section, the person in possession of the security deposit shall be relieved of further liability.
(6) Upon receipt of transferred funds under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the transferee, in relation to such funds, shall be deemed to have all of the rights and obligations of a landlord holding the funds as a security deposit.
(7) Any provision, whether oral or written, in or pertaining to a rental agreement whereby any provision of this section for the benefit of a tenant or members of his household is waived shall be deemed to be against public policy and shall be void. Source: L. 71: p. 592, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 58-1-28. L. 76: (2) amended, p. 314, § 67, effective May 20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005).
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 139× “The tenant filed suit in the county court seeking return of the security deposit and treble damages pursuant to section 38-12-103, C.R.S. (2004), of Colorado's Wrongful Withholding of Security Deposits Act (the Act).”
Torres v. Portillos, 638 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 31× “2d 371 (1977), identified the purposes of 38-12-103(3)(a) as (1) insulating the award of damages to the plaintiff from being substantially depleted by attorneys’ fees, and (2) encouraging the private bar to enforce the provisions of section 38-12-103 in actions which generally…”
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga, 2018 CO 42 (Colo. 2018).
· cites it 5× “2d 1073 , 1075 (1977), where we held that section 38-12-103, C.R.S. (1973), a statutory cause of action that provides for an award of three times a security deposit wrongfully withheld by a landlord, is part remedial-constituting the security deposit itself-and part…”
Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 23× “Failure to provide such a statement within the statutory time limit works a “forfeiture of all [the landlord’s] rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit .”
Mau v. E.P.H. Corp., 638 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 15× “He also argues that, as a matter of law, a trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the award.”
Heatherridge Mgmt. Co. v. Benson, 558 P.2d 435 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 18× “Respondent filed suit in Denver County Court under section 38-12-103, C.R.S. 1973, 1 for recovery of his deposit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Carlson v. McCoy, 566 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 12× “Section 38-12-103, C.R.S. 1973, which became effective on July 1, 1971, provides that a landlord must, within thirty days of the termination of a leasehold, either return any deposit which he holds as security or provide written notice of any reasons for its retention.”
Turner v. Lyon, 539 P.2d 1241 (Colo. 1975).
· cites it 20× “Section 38-12-103(1). When the landlord still failed to return the money after the required seven-day notice of intent to sue, the tenants filed a claim in the county court for treble damages.”
Anderson v. Rosebrook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 15× “Section 38-12-103(1) provides: Return of security deposit.”
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 5× “" § 38-12-103(2). In their complaint, the Ingolds contend not only that Boulder Creek Apartments wrongfully withheld their security deposit, but that it did so willfully, thereby entitling the In-golds to treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.”
Guzman v. McDonald, 570 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 14× “Section 38-12-103(1), C.R.S. 1973. A list of the specific reasons for the retention was included in this written notice.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(1) — 8 cases
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005).
“The tenant filed suit in the county court seeking return of the security deposit and treble damages pursuant to section 38-12-103, C.R.S. (2004), of Colorado's Wrongful Withholding of Security Deposits Act (the Act).”
Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981).
“Failure to provide such a statement within the statutory time limit works a “forfeiture of all [the landlord’s] rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit .”
Turner v. Lyon, 539 P.2d 1241 (Colo. 1975).
“Section 38-12-103(1). When the landlord still failed to return the money after the required seven-day notice of intent to sue, the tenants filed a claim in the county court for treble damages.”
Anderson v. Rosebrook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987).
“Section 38-12-103(1) provides: Return of security deposit.”
Guzman v. McDonald, 570 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1977).
“Section 38-12-103(1), C.R.S. 1973. A list of the specific reasons for the retention was included in this written notice.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(2) — 5 cases
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005).
“The tenant filed suit in the county court seeking return of the security deposit and treble damages pursuant to section 38-12-103, C.R.S. (2004), of Colorado's Wrongful Withholding of Security Deposits Act (the Act).”
Turner v. Lyon, 539 P.2d 1241 (Colo. 1975).
“Section 38-12-103(1). When the landlord still failed to return the money after the required seven-day notice of intent to sue, the tenants filed a claim in the county court for treble damages.”
Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981).
“Failure to provide such a statement within the statutory time limit works a “forfeiture of all [the landlord’s] rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit .”
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007).
“" § 38-12-103(2). In their complaint, the Ingolds contend not only that Boulder Creek Apartments wrongfully withheld their security deposit, but that it did so willfully, thereby entitling the In-golds to treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.”
Torres v. Portillos, 638 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1981).
“2d 371 (1977), identified the purposes of 38-12-103(3)(a) as (1) insulating the award of damages to the plaintiff from being substantially depleted by attorneys’ fees, and (2) encouraging the private bar to enforce the provisions of section 38-12-103 in actions which generally…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(3) — 2 cases
Heatherridge Mgmt. Co. v. Benson, 558 P.2d 435 (Colo. 1976).
“Respondent filed suit in Denver County Court under section 38-12-103, C.R.S. 1973, 1 for recovery of his deposit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(3)(a) — 16 cases
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005).
“The tenant filed suit in the county court seeking return of the security deposit and treble damages pursuant to section 38-12-103, C.R.S. (2004), of Colorado's Wrongful Withholding of Security Deposits Act (the Act).”
Torres v. Portillos, 638 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1981).
“2d 371 (1977), identified the purposes of 38-12-103(3)(a) as (1) insulating the award of damages to the plaintiff from being substantially depleted by attorneys’ fees, and (2) encouraging the private bar to enforce the provisions of section 38-12-103 in actions which generally…”
Mau v. E.P.H. Corp., 638 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1981).
“He also argues that, as a matter of law, a trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to sustain the award.”
Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981).
“Failure to provide such a statement within the statutory time limit works a “forfeiture of all [the landlord’s] rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit .”
Anderson v. Rosebrook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987).
“Section 38-12-103(1) provides: Return of security deposit.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(3)(b) — 4 cases
Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1981).
“Failure to provide such a statement within the statutory time limit works a “forfeiture of all [the landlord’s] rights to withhold any portion of the security deposit .”
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007).
“" § 38-12-103(2). In their complaint, the Ingolds contend not only that Boulder Creek Apartments wrongfully withheld their security deposit, but that it did so willfully, thereby entitling the In-golds to treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.”
Torres v. Portillos, 638 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1981).
“2d 371 (1977), identified the purposes of 38-12-103(3)(a) as (1) insulating the award of damages to the plaintiff from being substantially depleted by attorneys’ fees, and (2) encouraging the private bar to enforce the provisions of section 38-12-103 in actions which generally…”
Guzman v. McDonald, 570 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1977).
“Section 38-12-103(1), C.R.S. 1973. A list of the specific reasons for the retention was included in this written notice.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(3)(l) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(4)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-12-103(7) — 5 cases
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007).
“" § 38-12-103(2). In their complaint, the Ingolds contend not only that Boulder Creek Apartments wrongfully withheld their security deposit, but that it did so willfully, thereby entitling the In-golds to treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.”
Anderson v. Rosebrook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987).
“Section 38-12-103(1) provides: Return of security deposit.”
Heatherridge Mgmt. Co. v. Benson, 558 P.2d 435 (Colo. 1976).
“Respondent filed suit in Denver County Court under section 38-12-103, C.R.S. 1973, 1 for recovery of his deposit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.