If you only remember one point about getting a security deposit back in Vermont, remember this: The cap is No statewide cap. The return deadline is 14 days after termination of the rental agreement / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions. Interest: No statewide interest requirement. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off 9 V.S.A. § 4461. Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 4461.
Interest and accounting
No statewide interest requirement.
Walking through Vermont facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Vermont authority does the work at each step.
A residential tenant moves out of a Vermont rental and the landlord has not returned the deposit.
- Check the cap that applied when the deposit was collected: No statewide cap.
- Calendar the return deadline: 14 days after termination of the rental agreement / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
- Interest, if any: No statewide interest requirement.
- If the landlord keeps money without the required accounting: Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 4461.
Vermont does not cap residential deposits statewide. Landlords must return deposits with itemization within 14 days. Double damages apply for wrongful withholding. Small claims is the usual forum.
Penalties for wrongful withholding
Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 4461.
Practical process for tenants and landlords
Vermont does not cap residential deposits statewide. Landlords must return deposits with itemization within 14 days. Double damages apply for wrongful withholding. Small claims is the usual forum.
Document the unit with dated photos or video at move-in and move-out, keep the lease and any inspection checklist, and send a dated written demand if the deadline passes without a lawful accounting.
Related Vermont guides
- How to file for divorce in Vermont
- Child custody and parenting time in Vermont
- DUI penalties in Vermont
Case law: security deposits in Vermont
Cheryl L’Esperance, Matthew and Kyle L’Esperance, Scott and Daryl Simpson v. Wayne Benware and Sandra Lebo
…nal distress; (6) common law fraud; (7) failure to return a security deposit; and (8) negligence. Prior to trial, the court granted summary judgment for landlord on the rental housing health code and warranty of habitability claims. The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on the claims of landlord’s liability for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and for failure to…
Cheryl L’Esperance, Matthew and Kyle L’Esperance, Scott and Daryl Simpson v. Wayne Benware and Sandra Lebo is worth reading on Vermont security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Prior to trial, the court granted summary judgment for landlord on the rental housing health code and warranty of habitability claims." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re Soon KWON
In Re Soon KWON, 189 Vt. 598 (2011)
…of Review’s decision directing landlord to return tenants’ security deposit. Landlord contends the court erred in: (1) declining to hold a de novo hearing; (2) concluding that landlord failed to provide proper notice of the security-deposit statement; (3) determining the amount of the deposit to be returned; (4) upholding the Board’s authority to conduct a hearing before a sin…
On security deposits, In Re Soon KWON speaks to the Vermont dispute in this passage: "Review’s decision directing landlord to return tenants’ security deposit." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
William ANDRUS v. Ken DUNBAR
William ANDRUS v. Ken DUNBAR, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
…rst of each month. Tenant paid the first month’s rent and a security deposit equal to a month’s rent. After January 2003, tenant paid no further rent. On May 1, 2003, landlord delivered a notice to tenant that read in part: In accordance with Section 4467 of title 9 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated and Section 8 of your lease agreement dated October 25, 2002, with William Andr…
William ANDRUS v. Ken DUNBAR is worth reading on Vermont security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Tenant paid the first month’s rent and a security deposit equal to a month’s rent. After January 2003, tenant paid no further rent." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
David Nepveu v. George Rau
David Nepveu v. George Rau, 155 Vt. 373 (1990)
…anty of habitability and wrongfully withholding plaintiff’s security deposit. We affirm. Upon first occupying the leased apartment on December 31, 1987, the tenant discovered that the toilet did not flush and promptly complained to the landlord. After numerous verbal notices to defendant of the problem and two repair attempts by a plumber, the problem persisted. Finally, plaint…
Vermont opinions such as David Nepveu v. George Rau are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "We affirm. Upon first occupying the leased apartment on December 31, 1987, the tenant discovered that the toilet did not flush and promptly complained to the landlord." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Stephen POLLAK v. CITY OF BURLINGTON
Stephen POLLAK v. CITY OF BURLINGTON, 158 Vt. 650 (1992)
…005. As part of its minimum housing program, the city has a security deposit provision. City of Burlington, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, § 18-120. Disputes arising under that ordinance, therefore, are required by § 5005 to be resolved by the housing board of review. Since the housing board of review was intended by the Legislature to be an integral part of a municipality’s r…
Practitioners open Stephen POLLAK v. CITY OF BURLINGTON when Vermont security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "As part of its minimum housing program, the city has a security deposit provision. City of Burlington, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, § 18-120. Disputes arising under that ordinance, therefore, are required by § 5005 to be resolved by the housing board of review." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Atwood v. Hill
…lation of the consumer fraud act, and failure to return the security deposit. The court held a final hearing in this matter on August 14, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the defendants had vacated the property, so plaintiffs only remaining claims was for damages. All parties represented themselves at the hearing. The court makes the following findings of fact based upon a preponder…
Atwood v. Hill is worth reading on Vermont security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "The court held a final hearing in this matter on August 14, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the defendants had vacated the property, so plaintiffs only remaining claims was for damages. All parties represented themselves at the hearing." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ferris v. Loucka
…t found, that Landlord Louis Ferris improperly withheld his security deposit after the end of the tenancy because he failed to provide Mr. Loucka with timely written notice of the reasons for any such withholding. Judgment was entered for Mr. Loucka for the value of the security deposit plus costs. Mr. Ferris has appealed, contending that Mr. Loucka did not vacate the apartment…
Ferris v. Loucka is worth reading on Vermont security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Landlord Louis Ferris improperly withheld his security deposit after the end of the tenancy because he failed to provide Mr. Loucka with timely written notice of the reasons for any such withholding. Judgment was entered for Mr." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Northgate Hous. Ltd. v. Massie
Northgate Hous. Ltd. v. Massie (2005)
…004 and owe landlord for back rent. Landlord has retained a security deposit in the amount of $263.19. Landlord also claims physical damages to the apartment. In the course of prosecuting, landlord has expended sheriffs’ fees of $85.52, court costs of $150.00 and attorneys’ fees of $4,526.40. DISCUSSION Landlord’s original claim was an ejectment against tenants. See 12 V.S.A. §…
Northgate Hous. Ltd. v. Massie is worth reading on Vermont security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Landlord has retained a security deposit in the amount of $263.19. Landlord also claims physical damages to the apartment. In the course of prosecuting, landlord has expended sheriffs’ fees of $85.52, court costs of $150.00 and attorneys’ fees of $4,526.40." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Maximum deposit: No statewide cap
- Return deadline: 14 days after termination of the rental agreement / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
- Interest: No statewide interest requirement.
- Penalties: Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 4461.
- Primary authority: 9 V.S.A. § 4461.
Deposit limits in Vermont
No statewide cap
When the deposit must be returned
14 days after termination of the rental agreement / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
Frequently asked questions
How much can a landlord charge for a security deposit in Vermont?
No statewide cap
How long does a landlord have to return my deposit?
14 days after termination of the rental agreement / surrender of possession, with an itemized list of deductions
What if my landlord keeps the deposit without an itemized list?
Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 4461.
This guide covers Vermont residential security-deposit law as of 2026. Commercial leases and local ordinances can differ — verify the statute that applies to your unit.