Madison small claims court orders return of $240 carpet-cleaning deposit deduction

The small claims court in Madison ordered Owen Bell to return the full $240 he withheld from Leah Mercer’s security deposit for carpet cleaning. It granted Mercer’s request because Bell had not adequately connected the charge to carpet damage attributable to her tenancy.

The dispute turned on a distinction between showing that a carpet needed cleaning and showing that a departing tenant owed the bill. Mercer did not prove that every mark was preexisting or ordinary wear, but that gap did not establish Bell’s right to retain her money.

The award restores the disputed portion of a $900 deposit. Mercer had already received $660. The court awarded no additional amount, interest or costs.

A text exchange dated two days after move-in established that at least one gray patch by the living-room window was already present. Bell had acknowledged seeing it before Mercer received the keys. But the exchange contained no photograph or measurement, so it did not establish the carpet’s complete condition at either end of the tenancy.

The deposit statement likewise had a limited role: it proved the amount withheld and Bell’s stated reason, not that cleaning occurred, what it cost or who was responsible. Bell’s account that he saw marks after move-out did not establish their cause or show that they went beyond ordinary wear.

The court assessed the parties’ burdens separately. Mercer had to prove her claim, while Bell had to support the deduction he made. An itemized label was insufficient when both the underlying expense and the tenant’s responsibility were disputed. No receipt, move-out photograph or other record filled those gaps.

Nor could the court simply reduce the charge. There was no reliable basis for calculating a smaller amount attributable to Mercer. The ruling did not find that Bell was dishonest or that no cleaning occurred; it found that he had not justified charging Mercer.

Mercer argued that the carpet marks predated her occupancy and that paying a cleaner did not establish her responsibility. She relied on the move-in exchange and the deposit statement, seeking the entire $240 back.

Bell maintained that the acknowledged patch did not explain the carpet’s full condition after move-out. He said he personally observed marks, paid $240 for cleaning and withheld only that expense rather than imposing a penalty.

He nevertheless acknowledged that he had no receipt or move-out photograph and could not show which marks the cleaning addressed. In his final submission, he asked the court to consider reducing the deduction rather than returning it in full.

Mercer’s tenancy in the Madison apartment lasted about a year. After she left, Bell’s deposit statement recorded a $240 deduction for living-room carpet marks and the remaining $660 refund, which Mercer acknowledged receiving.

The judgment resolves only that cleaning deduction on the evidence presented. It leaves the carpet’s complete condition unresolved, while making clear that uncertainty about all the marks did not supply proof supporting the amount withheld.