The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Amanda Leigh Verhaeg and Gregory Michael Verhaeg v. Tyler McElligott and MAC Investment Group, LLC, which centers around a dispute over a security deposit. The court's decision, filed on September 25, 2026, has implications for tenants and landlords regarding the return of security deposits and compliance with state laws.
In this case, the Verhaegs, who were tenants, claimed that their landlord failed to return their full security deposit in accordance with the Illinois Security Deposit Return Act. This ruling is significant for both landlords and tenants, as it clarifies the obligations of landlords when it comes to returning security deposits and providing itemized statements of damages.
Background
The dispute began when Amanda and Gregory Verhaeg entered into a nine-month residential lease agreement with MAC Investment Group LLC on August 12, 2023. The lease was set to run from September 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024. The Verhaegs vacated the property on May 25, 2024, and later filed a complaint against their landlord, Tyler McElligott, on September 26, 2024. They alleged that McElligott had violated the Security Deposit Return Act by not providing an itemized statement of damages within the required 30 days after they vacated the premises.
The Verhaegs claimed that they had paid a $1,400 security deposit but only received $447 back, despite requesting the remaining amount and an itemized statement. They sought the return of the remaining $953 and a penalty of $2,800, which is twice the amount of the security deposit, as stipulated by the Act.
In response, McElligott and MAC Investment Group filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Verhaegs had caused damages to the property and had not paid pet rent. The case proceeded to a bench trial on May 7, 2025, where the trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the Verhaegs had not proven their claims.
The Ruling
The Illinois Appellate Court reviewed the case and made several key determinations. The court found that the trial court had erred in its judgment regarding the Verhaegs' claims. Specifically, the appellate court stated, “the evidence established that defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the Act.” The court also noted that the defendants did not provide an itemized statement until September 2024, which was well beyond the 30-day requirement after the Verhaegs vacated the premises.
Justice Bollinger delivered the judgment of the court, with Justices Boie and McHaney concurring. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision that found the Verhaegs had not sustained their burden of proof regarding the violation of the Security Deposit Return Act. The court remanded the case with directions to enter judgment for the Verhaegs in the amount of $953.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both tenants and landlords in Illinois. It reinforces the importance of complying with the Security Deposit Return Act, which mandates that landlords provide an itemized statement of damages within 30 days of a tenant vacating a rental property. Failure to do so can result in the landlord being required to return the entire security deposit.
The court's decision clarifies that landlords cannot simply claim that they acted in good faith if they do not meet the statutory requirements. This ruling may encourage tenants to be more vigilant in asserting their rights regarding security deposits and could lead to more disputes being resolved in favor of tenants.
What's Next
The defendants have the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case may also set a precedent for similar disputes in the future, as it emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and requirements in rental agreements.