Quick Reference: The Lessee's Deposit Act at a Glance

Louisiana Changed This Statute in 2026

Any Louisiana security deposit guide published before the 2026 amendment will not reflect the current itemization rule.

Acts 2026, No. 63, enacted from House Bill 292 by Representatives Boyd and Taylor, amended and reenacted La. R.S. 9:3251(A). The act took effect on 1 August 2026, the standard effective date for Louisiana regular-session acts that do not specify one. The change is narrow, but it splits one deadline into two, and it is the most operationally useful development in this statute in years.

Before the amendment, both obligations ran on the same clock. Return the deposit within one month, and if you retained any portion, send the itemized statement within that same month.

Under the current text, those obligations have separated:

The deposit itself is still due within one month after the lease shall terminate. That did not change.

The itemized statement, where any portion is retained, is due "within one month after the date the tenancy terminates or within fifteen days after the date that is one month after the tenancy terminates." That is new, and it gives a lessor up to roughly one month plus fifteen days to produce the accounting.

The amendment gives lessors additional time to prepare the itemized accounting where a portion of the deposit is retained. It is not a licence to delay the undisputed balance: the deposit-return obligation remains tied to the one-month deadline after lease termination. A lessor who owes a refund and sits on it for six weeks because the paperwork is not finished has satisfied the itemization rule and breached the return rule.

Louisiana is a civil-law jurisdiction, so its rental law speaks of lessor and lessee, and the lease itself is governed by the Civil Code rather than by this statute. Security deposits sit separately, in Title 9, in a four-section Act that regulates almost nothing about how the money is held and a great deal about how it is accounted for at the end.

What the Two Deadlines Actually Say

The statutory language rewards close reading, because the two obligations use slightly different trigger words.

The deposit "shall be returned to the tenant or lessee of residential or dwelling premises within one month after the lease shall terminate."

The itemized statement is due "within one month after the date the tenancy terminates or within fifteen days after the date that is one month after the tenancy terminates."

One clause refers to termination of the lease; the other to termination of the tenancy. In an ordinary fixed-term tenancy ending on schedule those will be the same date. Where a tenancy ended early, continued past expiry, was mutually terminated, or is the subject of a notice dispute, confirm the actual termination date rather than assuming.

On whether "one month" means thirty days, be careful. The statute says one month. Louisiana appellate decisions discussing this Act have at times described the period as thirty days. There does not appear to be a Louisiana authority squarely resolving calendar-month computation for R.S. 9:3251, so the safe operating position is to work from the statutory language and build in margin. If your calendar produces a date at the outer edge of either reading, act on the earlier one.

On whether the clock runs from move-out, the statutory trigger is termination, not key return. The Loyola Pro Bono Desk Manual, the standard Louisiana legal-services reference, states that the period begins on the date of termination in the lease agreement. For a fixed-term lease ending as scheduled, that will usually be the stated date. Record the legal termination date separately from the physical move-out and key-return dates.

For a multi-state portfolio this is a real divergence. Several states run the clock from delivery of possession or from the tenant's written demand. Louisiana does not. The lease termination date belongs on the lease record as the field that drives both deadlines, which is what contracts and renewals is for.

What You May Actually Retain

The Act is narrower than most lessors assume. A lessor may retain all or any portion of the deposit "which is reasonably necessary to remedy a default of the tenant or to remedy unreasonable wear to the premises."

Two statutory grounds: amounts reasonably necessary to remedy a tenant default, and amounts reasonably necessary to remedy unreasonable wear. Whether a particular charge qualifies as a recoverable tenant default depends on the lease, the facts and other applicable Louisiana law, so a line item labelled "cleaning" or "late fee" is not automatically recoverable simply because it appears in the lease.

Two drafting notes. Louisiana's phrase is "unreasonable wear," not the "damage beyond normal wear and tear" formula used elsewhere; your statement should track the statute. And the qualifier "reasonably necessary" does work: an amount exceeding what is reasonably necessary is, to that extent, wrongfully retained, and the penalty in 9:3252 is measured against the portion wrongfully retained.

The two grounds also call for two different kinds of evidence. Because every physical-condition deduction must be tied to documented unreasonable wear and a supportable cost, a dated condition record at both ends of the tenancy is essential, which is what move-in and move-out management produces. For tenant-default deductions such as unpaid rent or other recoverable charges, the proof is different: the lease, the notices, the invoices, and a period-by-period ledger that establishes both the default and the amount claimed, which is what rent collection and payment records provide.

The Itemization Carries More Risk Than the Deadline

If you retain nothing, you owe the money and no statement. If you retain anything, you owe an itemized statement, and its quality drives your exposure.

The statutory minimum in 9:3251(A) is that the statement must account for the proceeds retained and give the reasons for the retention.

What Louisiana practice requires of an adequate itemization goes further. According to the Loyola manual's treatment of itemization adequacy, an adequate itemization must include a categorical specification that reasonably apprises the tenant of the nature of the elements of wear and tear, must separately list each aspect of that wear and tear, and must relate the damage to "unreasonable wear." The written itemization must be sent to the tenant or the tenant's duly authorised agent. An oral explanation will not suffice absent exceptional circumstances, and an itemization found to lack specificity can support a willful-failure finding under 9:3252.

Practically, that means a defensible statement shows the original deposit amount, lists each deduction separately with its amount and a specific reason tied to a tenant default or to unreasonable wear, and shows the refund balance. A statement reading "cleaning and repairs, $450" is not a weak document. It is evidence for the other side.

A recent case shows how narrow the compliance path is. In Ellis v. Ireland, 2024-CA-0721 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/14/25), the lessor did respond to the tenants' written demand within thirty days, but conceded at trial that he did not provide an itemized statement accounting for the retained proceeds. The tenants recovered their $1,950 deposit plus $3,900 in statutory penalties. Responding is not compliance. The itemized statement is the compliance act.

The 2026 amendment makes this easier to get right, not harder. If the accounting is not ready at the one-month mark, you now have a further fifteen days to produce it properly. The wrong response to the extension is to send a vague statement on time. The right response is to return the undisputed balance within the month and use the additional window to produce an accounting that stands up.

Willful Failure and the Written Demand

La. R.S. 9:3252(A) provides that the willful failure to comply with R.S. 9:3251 gives the tenant the right to recover any portion of the deposit wrongfully retained and three hundred dollars or twice the amount of the portion wrongfully retained, whichever is greater. It then adds: "Failure to remit within thirty days after written demand for a refund shall constitute willful failure."

Keep two clocks distinct, because they do different jobs.

• The R.S. 9:3251 deadlines are your primary obligations: return within one month, itemize within one month or the additional fifteen days.

• The R.S. 9:3252 written-demand rule is separate. Once a tenant makes written demand for a refund, failure to remit within thirty days constitutes willful failure by the statute's own terms. That thirty-day period does not replace or extend your original deadlines; it is an independent trigger.

Louisiana appellate jurisprudence treats a written demand as a prerequisite to recovering the statutory willful-failure damages. In Ellis v. Ireland, the Fourth Circuit quoted Growe v. Johnson, 2020-0143 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/17/21), 314 So.3d 87, that Louisiana jurisprudence has consistently held a lessee is not entitled to damages for willful failure to comply with R.S. 9:3251 if a written demand for the return of the deposit was not issued, citing Trapani v. Morgan, 426 So.2d 285 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1983). The Loyola manual records that the First and Fourth Circuits have taken this position and criticises it, arguing the reading is unsupported by the statutory language and that the sentence properly creates a conclusive route to willfulness rather than a universal prerequisite. That is a disagreement between the courts and commentators, not an unresolved split among circuits.

Note what the rule does and does not reach. It concerns the statutory penalty, not the deposit itself, which remains recoverable on ordinary principles.

Two practical consequences. Any written demand for a deposit refund should be routed for same-day attention, because thirty days of silence produces willfulness on the face of the statute and, as Ellis shows, even a timely response without an itemized statement will not save you. And do not build a compliance strategy on the hope that no demand arrives.

Note also who is exposed. The statute permits recovery from the landlord or lessor or from the lessor's successor in interest, and under 9:3252(B) the action may be brought in the parish of the lessor's domicile or where the property is situated.

The Fee Provision Is Where Exposure Grows

La. R.S. 9:3253 permits the court, in its discretion, to award costs and attorney's fees to the prevailing party. The penalty in 9:3252 is in addition to the refund itself.

Louisiana courts have awarded fees at every level. In Miller v. Ecung, 96-267 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/6/96), 676 So. 2d 656, $1,000 in fees. In Vinson v. Henley, 38,006 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/28/04), 864 So. 2d 894, an additional $1,250 for the appeal. And in WebApps, L.L.C. v. Murdock, 2016-0092 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/29/16), 196 So. 3d 765, a tenant was awarded $27,868.75 in attorney's fees and $5,490.15 in costs, with a further $3,000 on appeal.

WebApps is an unusually large example rather than a typical deposit-dispute outcome. What it demonstrates is that the discretionary fee provision can matter far more than the statutory penalty in contested litigation.

Run the arithmetic on an ordinary dispute. A $1,200 deposit, $600 wrongfully retained. The penalty is the greater of $300 or twice $600, so $1,200, plus the $600 refund. Statutory exposure of $1,800. A contested proceeding with a fee award can exceed that several times over.

The Loyola manual adds a realistic caveat in the other direction: some small claims courts deny attorney's fees to a prevailing tenant or award an unreasonably low amount. Fee awards are discretionary and forum-dependent. But budgeting for the $300 figure alone misprices the risk.

One historical point. Before 2019 the penalty was $200, or actual damages if greater. Acts 2018 No. 416 raised it to the current formula effective 1 January 2019, and the increased penalty applies to leases entered into before that date as well. Guidance still quoting $200 is badly out of date.

The Two Provisions That Work in the Lessor's Favour

Abandonment switches off the Paragraph A procedure. La. R.S. 9:3251(C) provides that Paragraph A "shall not apply when the tenant abandons the premises, either without giving notice as required or prior to the termination of the lease."

Handle this with real care, because Ellis is a warning. The lessor there insisted that no deposit was due because the tenants had abandoned the property and left their belongings. He lost. The court observed that even where there is a valid dispute over a lease, a lessor must comply with the statute or suffer the penalty.

Abandonment is a factual determination, and a landlord's declaration does not automatically invoke subsection (C). Misclassifying an ordinary move-out as abandonment to avoid itemising is precisely the decision that produces a willful-failure finding. Where you rely on it, document the basis first: the notice the lease required, whether it was given, the date the tenant left relative to the lease term, and the condition of the unit on entry. And consider whether serving an itemized statement anyway is cheaper than defending the classification.

Transferring the property transfers the liability, if you transfer the money. Under 9:3251(B), on a transfer of the lessor's interest during the term, the transferor "shall also transfer to his successor in interest the sum deposited" and "shall then be relieved of further liability with respect to the security deposit." The transferee becomes responsible for return at termination.

The conditional is doing the work. Relief follows the transfer of the money. A seller who keeps the deposits at closing has discharged nothing, and a buyer who takes the property without reconciling the deposit schedule against actual funds inherits both the obligation and, under 9:3252(A), direct exposure as a successor in interest.

And you cannot draft around any of it. La. R.S. 9:3254 provides that any waiver of the tenant's rights under this Part is null and void.

The Forwarding Address Cuts Differently Here

La. R.S. 9:3251(A) states that "the tenant shall furnish the lessor a forwarding address at the termination of the lease, to which such statements may be sent."

Note the drafting. It is expressed as an obligation on the tenant. What it is not expressed as, unlike the corresponding provisions in several other states, is a precondition suspending the lessor's liability until the address arrives. Indiana and Connecticut both write that condition explicitly into their statutes. Louisiana does not.

As a risk-management practice rather than a statutory requirement, request the address in writing at move-out, record when you requested it and what came back, and if nothing does, send the statement and any refund to the best address you hold with proof of mailing. Note also that Louisiana practice requires the written itemization to be sent to the tenant or the tenant's duly authorised agent, so where a tenant has appointed one, send it there.

Common Mistakes Property Managers Make in Louisiana

1. Treating the itemization deadline as identical to the return deadline. Since Acts 2026 No. 63, the statement may be sent within one month after tenancy termination or within fifteen days after that one-month date. The deposit return is still one month.

2. Treating the fifteen-day extension as extra time to hold the money. It applies to the statement, not the undisputed balance.

3. Working from a guide published before the 2026 amendment. It will describe the old single deadline.

4. Assuming one month and thirty days are interchangeable. The statute says one month; some decisions describe thirty days. Where the readings differ, act on the earlier date.

5. Starting the clock at key return. The statutory trigger is termination of the lease or tenancy.

6. Responding to a demand without itemising. In Ellis v. Ireland the lessor replied within thirty days, gave no itemized statement, and was liable for the deposit plus double.

7. Sending a lump-sum deduction. An adequate itemization must reasonably apprise the tenant of the elements of wear, list each separately, and relate the damage to unreasonable wear.

8. Explaining deductions by phone. An oral explanation will not suffice absent exceptional circumstances.

9. Deducting outside the two statutory grounds. Only amounts reasonably necessary to remedy a tenant default or unreasonable wear, and whether a charge qualifies depends on the lease and the facts.

10. Using out-of-state wording. Louisiana's phrase is "unreasonable wear."

11. Treating a written demand as ordinary correspondence. Thirty days of silence constitutes willful failure by statute.

12. Budgeting for the $300 penalty alone. The greater-of-double calculation plus a discretionary fee award is the real range.

13. Quoting the old $200 figure. It changed effective 1 January 2019 and applies to older leases too.

14. Declaring abandonment to avoid itemising. Ellis rejected exactly that defence; a valid dispute over the lease does not excuse compliance.

15. Selling without transferring the deposits. Relief under 9:3251(B) follows the money.

16. Buying without reconciling deposits. A successor in interest is directly exposed under 9:3252(A).

17. Relying on a missing forwarding address. Louisiana does not write that in as a precondition to liability.

18. Assuming an escrow or interest obligation exists. The Act imposes none, so importing another state's custody process is unnecessary; importing its deadlines is dangerous.

Build the Record the Act Assumes

The Lessee's Deposit Act prescribes almost nothing about how you hold the money and almost everything about how you account for it. The 2026 amendment makes that split explicit, and your systems should mirror it.

Two separate compliance clocks now run from termination. The deposit-return deadline at one month after lease termination, and the itemization deadline at one month after tenancy termination or fifteen days beyond that where any portion is retained. Treating them as one deadline is a compliance error in both directions: it risks late refunds if you work to the outer date, and it wastes the extension if you work to the inner one.

Four things belong in the system. The legal lease-termination date and tenancy-termination date, recorded separately where they may differ, and both distinct from move-out and key return. Two derived deadlines rather than one. The date any written demand was received, because it starts an independent thirty-day clock under 9:3252. And a dated, photographed condition record at both ends of the tenancy, since Louisiana mandates no move-in inventory and its absence is felt only when a physical-condition deduction is challenged.

The itemized statement itself deserves to be a controlled document rather than a free-text letter, generated with the deposit figure, each deduction on its own line with a stated reason tied to a default or to unreasonable wear, and the refund balance. Portfolio-level dashboards and reports should surface those two deadlines separately: every terminated lease approaching its one-month refund date, and every retained-deposit file approaching its later itemization date. The 2026 amendment makes it important to track that separate later deadline whenever any portion of a deposit is retained.

Managers running deposit compliance across several states will find the contrast with Ohio's return rule and its interest and double-damages penalty, or with Connecticut's escrow mandate and published interest rate, instructive. Those states regulate custody of the money. Louisiana regulates the paperwork at the end, and leaves the fee exposure open.

Conclusion

Louisiana's Lessee's Deposit Act is four sections long and asks very little of a lessor during the tenancy. No cap, no escrow, no interest. Everything it demands falls after the lease ends, and as of Acts 2026 No. 63 it demands it on two different clocks.

Return the deposit within one month after the lease terminates. Retain only what is reasonably necessary to remedy a default of the tenant or unreasonable wear to the premises. Where you retain anything, forward an itemized statement accounting for the proceeds retained and giving the reasons, within one month after the tenancy terminates or within fifteen days after that one-month date. Use the extra window to produce a better accounting, not to delay the refund.

Get it wrong and R.S. 9:3252 gives the tenant the wrongfully retained portion plus the greater of $300 or double that portion, with a written demand unanswered for thirty days constituting willful failure by definition, and with the lessor's successor in interest exposed alongside the lessor. R.S. 9:3253 then adds costs and attorney's fees at the court's discretion, which in a contested case can dwarf the underlying dispute.

Ellis v. Ireland is the case to remember. The lessor answered the demand on time, believed the tenants had abandoned the property, and still paid the deposit plus double, because he never sent an itemized statement. A valid dispute over the lease does not excuse compliance with the statute.

The Act does give you two things. Subsection (C) switches off the Paragraph A procedure where the tenant abandons the premises, on facts you should document before relying on them. Subsection (B) relieves you of further liability on a sale, but only if the deposits actually move with the property.

The operating discipline is short. Put the termination dates on the record and calculate two deadlines from them. Itemise every deduction in writing with a reason tied to default or unreasonable wear. Treat a written demand as a thirty-day emergency. Document any abandonment finding before relying on it. And reconcile deposits at closing, on both sides.

This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. La. R.S. 9:3251(A) was amended by Acts 2026, No. 63. Fourth Circuit jurisprudence treats written demand as a prerequisite to recovery of the statutory willful-failure damages under La. R.S. 9:3252, while legal-services commentary has criticised that interpretation. The Civil Code articles governing lease apply alongside the Lessee's Deposit Act. Verify the current statutory text with the Louisiana State Legislature before acting, and consult a licensed Louisiana attorney on a specific matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How long does a Louisiana landlord have to return a security deposit?
The deposit must be returned within one month after the lease terminates under La. R.S. 9:3251(A). If any portion is retained, the lessor must also send a written itemized statement, which under the current statute is due within one month after the tenancy terminates or within fifteen days after the date that is one month after termination.

Q2. Does Louisiana give more time to send the itemized statement?
Yes, since Acts 2026, No. 63. Although the deposit-return deadline remains one month after lease termination, the itemized statement may be sent within one month after tenancy termination or within fifteen days after that one-month date. The undisputed balance should not be held beyond the one-month return deadline.

Q3. What changed in Louisiana security deposit law in 2026?
Acts 2026, No. 63, enacted from House Bill 292, amended and reenacted La. R.S. 9:3251(A) to add the alternative fifteen-day window for the itemized statement. The return deadline for the deposit itself was not changed.

Q4. Is "one month" the same as thirty days?
The statute says one month, and some Louisiana decisions discussing the Act have described the period as thirty days. Work from the statutory language, and where the two readings produce different dates, act on the earlier one.

Q5. When does the clock start, at move-out or at lease termination?
The statutory trigger is termination, not key return. For a fixed-term lease ending as scheduled that will usually be the date stated in the lease. Confirm the actual termination date where the tenancy ended early, continued after expiry, or is subject to a notice dispute.

Q6. Does Louisiana cap security deposits?
No. The Lessee's Deposit Act sets no maximum, does not require a separate or escrow account, and does not require interest.

Q7. What can a Louisiana lessor deduct?
Only amounts reasonably necessary to remedy a default of the tenant or to remedy unreasonable wear to the premises. Whether a particular charge qualifies depends on the lease, the facts and other applicable law.

Q8. What must the itemized statement contain?
At minimum it must account for the proceeds retained and give the reasons, in writing. Louisiana practice requires an adequate itemization to reasonably apprise the tenant of the nature of the elements of wear, list each separately, and relate the damage to unreasonable wear. It must be sent to the tenant or the tenant's duly authorised agent, and an oral explanation will not suffice absent exceptional circumstances.

Q9. Is answering the tenant's demand enough?
No. In Ellis v. Ireland (La. App. 4 Cir. 2025) the lessor responded to the written demand within thirty days but provided no itemized statement, and the tenants recovered the deposit plus double as statutory penalties.

Q10. What is the penalty for failing to comply?
Under La. R.S. 9:3252(A), the tenant may recover the portion wrongfully retained plus $300 or twice that portion, whichever is greater. The penalty rose from $200 effective 1 January 2019 and applies to earlier leases as well.

Q11. Can a tenant recover attorney's fees?
Yes, at the court's discretion under La. R.S. 9:3253. In WebApps, L.L.C. v. Murdock (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) a tenant was awarded $27,868.75 in fees and $5,490.15 in costs, plus $3,000 on appeal. That is an unusually large example, not a typical outcome.

Q12. What happens if the tenant abandons the property?
La. R.S. 9:3251(C) provides that Paragraph A does not apply where the tenant abandons the premises, either without required notice or prior to termination. But abandonment is a factual determination, and in Ellis a lessor who asserted abandonment still lost, the court noting that a valid dispute over a lease does not excuse compliance with the statute.

Q13. What happens to deposits when the property is sold?
Under La. R.S. 9:3251(B), the transferor must transfer the deposits to the successor in interest and is then relieved of further liability; the transferee becomes responsible for return. Relief depends on the money actually being transferred, and R.S. 9:3252(A) allows recovery from a successor in interest.

Q14. Can a lease waive the tenant's deposit rights?
No. La. R.S. 9:3254 provides that any waiver of the tenant's rights under this Part is null and void.