Pet Deposit is Not a Security Deposit: Bilsky v. Calabrese, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1122 (2011)

Facts: What Happened Bilsky v. Calabrese, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1122 (2011)?

• On May 3, 2007 Adam Bilsky (Tenant) signed a written lease agreement with Vanessa Calabrese (Landlord) to start June 1, 2007 and end May 31, 2008.
• Tenant gave Landlord two checks: one for $3150, representing the security deposit, and the other for $500, representing a pet deposit.
• Tenant lived in the house for the full term of the lease. Landlord returned the security deposit of $3150 in June 2008. However, Landlord withheld the $500 pet deposit because of damages in the backyard from the pet.
• Tenant sued Landlord, because she did not give a written itemized statement for the money withheld and did not give enough interest in violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (RLTO).

Issue: What Question Did the Court Need to Answer?

• Should the pet deposit be considered a security deposit under the RLTO?

Rule: What Do the Laws Say About This Situation?

• The term "pet deposit" does not appear in the Chicago RLTO. So, the court had to evaluate the "reasons behind and the necessity of the ordinance". The RLTO is designed, in part, to help protect the rights of tenants with respect to their security deposits.
• Security deposits are used by the landlord as "security for the tenant’s full and faithful performance of the lease terms.” Starr v. Gay, 354 Ill. App. 3d 610, 612-13 (2004). In other words, the security deposit is a promise that the tenant will take care of the place and follow the rules in the lease.

Analysis: What Did the Court Decide?

• NO. A “pet deposit” is a deposit with a limited purpose, so it is not a “security deposit” under the Chicago RLTO. The pet deposit was collected in case there was damage from only a pet - not to make sure that the tenant followed all the lease terms. If the landlord and tenant meant to make the pet deposit have the same protections as a security deposit, they could have agreed upon an increased security deposit that included the pet deposit. They did not do that. The 'pet deposit' was separate from the 'security deposit.'

Conclusion: What Can We Learn From This Case?

A "pet deposit" and a "security deposit" are separate types of deposits, so all of the Chicago RLTO security deposit rules like giving interest or a receipt do not apply to pet deposits.