[U] Lattimore V. Rushing

¶1 Mark Lattimore appeals a judgment entered against him in favor of his former landlord, Richard Kratsch. He also appeals an order denying reconsideration. He claims the circuit court erred in not ordering Kratsch to pay him double damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees for violating an administrative rule governing a landlord's retention of a tenant's security deposit. Lattimore also contends the circuit court should have awarded him damages against Kratsch for allowing Lattimore's former girlfriend to retain certain of his belongings and for allegedly denying Lattimore's agents access to all of Lattimore's belongings. We conclude none of Lattimore's claims have merit. Accordingly, we affirm the appealed judgment.