Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elise Garner asks for return of $180 withheld from her security deposit by Warren Bell for kitchen cleaning. Warren opposes repayment. The only requested relief identified in the record is the $180. No other claim or amount is established. 2. This is a decision on the final hearing record. The parties have both made closing statements, and the record identifies no further obtainable proof. The decision therefore rests on what has been presented, not on what either side might have produced. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Elise has proved that she is entitled to recover the $180 cleaning deduction. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts. Rule 11 states that a security-deposit deduction is stronger when itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. The supplied rules do not make an inadequately explained deduction automatically refundable regardless of the claimant’s burden; Elise must still prove her request. Submissions of the parties 4. Elise says her move-out photos show clear counters, an empty sink, and a swept kitchen floor. She also says Warren sent a message after the walkthrough praising the apartment overall and thanking her for leaving it tidy. She argues that paying a cleaner does not establish that she caused a cleaning need or owed the cost. She describes the invoice as failing to state what work was done or connect it to a condition she left. She asks for $180. 5. Warren’s submissions assert that a text praised the apartment’s condition and tidiness and ask the court to deny Elise’s request. They do not identify what kitchen cleaning was performed, what condition required it, or what record establishes the cost. Warren’s submissions are arguments, not proof of those details. Evidence and findings 6. The presented move-out kitchen photos, identified as exhibits 3, 5, and 7, show clear counters, an empty sink, and a swept floor. They are relevant and provide moderate support for Elise’s description of those visible areas. The three exhibit entries describe the same two photos, so they are not treated as three independent sets of photographs. None shows inside the oven. The photos therefore do not establish the condition of every kitchen surface. 7. Elise repeatedly reports that Warren sent a favorable walkthrough message. The message itself is not among the identified exhibits. Her account is consistent across her submissions, but it remains an attributed account rather than a produced written record or admitted testimony. Warren’s submissions also refer to a text praising the apartment. That supports the existence of a favorable text as an asserted point, but the text’s exact wording and context are not available for review. In any event, general praise does not establish that no particular cleaning was needed. 8. Elise says an invoice is in the record but does not describe the work or link the charge to a condition she left. No separate invoice exhibit is identified in the supplied record. I can consider her description as an argument about the invoice, but cannot inspect its contents or treat the invoice’s details as independently established. Likewise, the record does not contain a specific account of cleaning performed, a stated cleaning need, or a reliable itemization of actual cost. The record does not establish that the oven was dirty, nor does it establish that it was clean. Reasons 9. Elise has some evidence supporting her position: the photos show several visible kitchen areas in tidy condition, and the reported favorable walkthrough message is consistent with that account. Those points make her challenge understandable and weigh against assuming that the entire kitchen required cleaning. They do not, however, prove the condition of the oven or establish that no cleaning was reasonably needed elsewhere. 10. Rule 11 makes itemization and a connection to actual costs important when evaluating a deposit deduction. The record as presented does not establish what work was done or how the $180 relates to a specific condition. That is a substantial evidentiary gap. But the burden assigned by Rule 1 remains with Elise because she seeks repayment. The absence of detailed proof supporting Warren’s deduction does not itself supply proof of every fact needed for Elise’s requested recovery. The court cannot infer the oven’s condition, the cleaner’s work, or the actual cost from the photos or the parties’ general statements. 11. Warren’s request that the deduction be retained is not supported by identified itemized records or a specific explanation of the cleaning. That weakness does not shift Elise’s burden. On the complete record, Elise has not established that the $180 should be returned. This finding is not a determination that Warren proved the deduction was properly itemized or that the oven needed cleaning; it is a determination that the party seeking repayment has not carried her burden on the evidence available. 12. Rule 9 concerns ordinary wear versus misconduct, but the record does not present a developed claim of damage or ordinary wear. The dispute is about cleaning, and no finding about damage is necessary. The result is limited to the $180 repayment request and does not decide any broader question about the parties’ rental relationship. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for defendant Warren Bell on plaintiff Elise Garner’s request for return of the $180 cleaning deduction. Elise’s request is denied, and no payment is ordered from Warren to Elise. The amount awarded is $0. This order reflects the failure of proof on Elise’s request; it does not affirmatively establish the specific cleaning performed or the actual cost of the deduction.