[ddrhazy]

No, you can only sue for the amount of the deposit. Perhaps you could also add your costs for pursuing your legal recourse. However, they can claim they made a good faith effort to return your deposit(it looks like they are) thus negating your right to judgement for legal fees and anything other than the deposit. Here's the Nevada statute for future reference. I'm sure it'll work out, don't worry so much.

NRS 118A.242 Security: Limitation on amount or value; surety bond in lieu of security; duties and liability of landlord; damages; disputing itemized accounting of security; prohibited provisions.

6. If the landlord fails or refuses to return the remainder of a security deposit within 30 days after the end of a tenancy, the landlord is liable to the tenant for damages:
(a) In an amount equal to the entire deposit; and
(b) For a sum to be fixed by the court of not more than the amount of the entire deposit.
7. In determining the sum, if any, to be awarded under paragraph (b) of subsection 6, the court shall consider:
(a) Whether the landlord acted in good faith;
(b) The course of conduct between the landlord and the tenant; and
(c) The degree of harm to the tenant caused by the landlord’s conduct.
8. Except for an agreement which provides for a nonrefundable charge for cleaning, in a reasonable amount, no rental agreement may contain any provision characterizing any security under this section as nonrefundable or any provision waiving or modifying a tenant’s rights under this section. Any such provision is void as contrary to public policy.
9. The claim of a tenant to security to which the tenant is entitled under this chapter takes precedence over the claim of any creditor of the landlord.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 1334; A 1981, 1184; 1985, 1414; 2009, 488)

[squishy506]

If your name is on the lease, your name has to be on the check for the return of the deposit. It's the law. Whoever you're dealing with doesn't know what they're talking about. Sounds like a leasing agent just repeating words of the manager or corporate. Most renters actually hate this law because it means they need to cash the check with all roommates present if they don't share a checking account. Very inconvenient. That may be why your property management company does it this way, although it's illegal.

[KonaKat]

the deposit goes back to the person who paid it. Did she pay the deposit and have a receipt to show for it? If two people shared the deposit and are not married, we issue 2 equal checks to each person. I've had a co-signor pay a deposit for someone - the tenants never got any of it the co-signor did. I'm not understanding this at all.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by KonaKat

the deposit goes back to the person who paid it. Did she pay the deposit and have a receipt to show for it? If two people shared the deposit and are not married, we issue 2 equal checks to each person. I've had a co-signor pay a deposit for someone - the tenants never got any of it the co-signor did. I'm not understanding this at all.

Great way to do it...but sounds pretty impractical. If you get cash or a bank check Do you actually keep records of who gave it to you? Five years later after it moves through two different PMs? One tenant buys out the other but you return the check to the one already bought out?

I think that method is incorrect. Presenting you with the money does not demonstrate ownership of the money. I would think an "and" check to both is the only reasonable way.

[ddrhazy]

I haven't read that you MUST return the deposit to the person who wrote the check. It's not under NRS 118A anyways.

[airics]

The deposit goes back to whoevers on the lease. End of story.