Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Mercer seeks return of $240 withheld from her $900 security deposit by Owen Bell. The deposit return statement lists a $240 deduction for “carpet cleaning—living room marks” and a $660 refund, which Leah acknowledges receiving. The dispute is whether Owen may retain the $240. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to present their accounts and respond. Both have now explained the limits of the available evidence. No receipt or move-out photograph is in the record, and neither side has offered further obtainable proof. The court decides the claim on the record presented. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah has proved that the carpet marks were ordinary wear or preexisting, rather than damage attributable to her. Leah bears the burden on her claim for relief under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from misconduct. 4. The second issue is whether Owen has adequately supported the $240 deposit deduction. Owen bears the burden of supporting the deduction he made. Rule 11 calls for deposit deductions to be itemized and tied to actual costs. Rules 5 and 6 require a reasonable response and a remedy proportionate to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah argues that the carpet marks predated her occupancy and that Owen’s acknowledgment of a preexisting stain means the cleaning charge should not be taken from her deposit. She asks for the full $240 back. Her submissions also point to the deposit statement as proof of the amount withheld. 6. Owen initially argued that he personally saw marks after Leah moved out, paid $240 to clean the carpet, and withheld no more than that expense. He acknowledged that the statement proves the amount and stated reason for the deduction, but not who caused the marks. In his final submission, Owen accepted that he has no receipt or move-out photo and cannot show what the carpet looked like in full or which marks the cleaning addressed. He asked the court to consider reducing the deduction rather than treating the cleaning cost alone as proof that Leah owed it. Evidence and findings 7. The deposit return statement is a clear accounting: it records a $900 deposit, a $240 carpet-cleaning deduction, and a $660 refund. Leah acknowledges receiving the refund. The statement proves the amount withheld and the reason recorded by Owen. It does not, by itself, prove that cleaning was performed, what it cost, or that Leah was responsible for the condition. 8. The move-in text exchange is a dated conversation displayed from Leah’s phone. Leah reported a gray patch by the living-room window, and Owen replied that he had seen it before she received the keys and had noted it. Owen acknowledges that exchange. It is persuasive evidence that at least one patch predated Leah’s occupancy. It contains no photograph or measurement, however, and does not establish the full condition of the carpet at move-in or move-out. 9. Owen’s account that he personally observed marks after Leah moved out is relevant evidence of what he says he saw. It does not identify the marks’ cause or establish that they were beyond ordinary wear. Owen also says he paid $240 for cleaning, but he has no receipt in the record. His account is not a produced payment record, and the deposit statement is not independent proof of payment. The court does not find that no cleaning occurred; rather, the available evidence does not establish the work, its cost, or its connection to damage caused by Leah. Reasons 10. Leah has not proved that every mark was preexisting or ordinary wear. The text exchange establishes one preexisting patch, not the entire carpet condition. Owen’s observation of marks after move-out leaves open the possibility that other marks existed, but it does not establish that Leah caused them. Under Rule 1, Leah’s burden on her claim cannot be met merely by showing that some carpet condition predated her tenancy. Under Rule 9, the court must distinguish ordinary use from tenant-caused damage, and the record does not permit a reliable finding that the marks charged to Leah were beyond ordinary wear and attributable to her. 11. That uncertainty does not establish Owen’s right to keep the money. Owen made the deduction and must support it. The statement is itemized as to amount and stated reason, but Rule 11 requires more than a label where the underlying cost and responsibility are disputed. Owen’s personal account supports that he saw marks and says he paid for cleaning, but he cannot show what the cleaning addressed or connect the full charge to Leah’s tenancy. The dated text affirmatively confirms that at least one patch was already present. No receipt, move-out photo, or other record fills those gaps. 12. Owen’s final request that the court reduce the deduction is an alternative position, not proof of a particular smaller amount. The record provides no reliable basis to calculate a partial charge attributable to Leah. Under Rules 5 and 6, the court cannot assign Leah an unsupported share of a cleaning expense simply because cleaning may have occurred. The full $240 deduction is therefore not justified on this record. This conclusion does not find that Owen acted dishonestly or that no cleaning took place; it reflects that the party retaining the deposit has not supported the amount charged to Leah. 13. The two issues are resolved separately. Leah has not established that the carpet marks were all preexisting or ordinary wear. Owen has not established that the $240 deduction was a reasonable, supported charge against Leah’s deposit. The latter failure determines the remedy because Owen bears the burden of justifying the deduction. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Leah Mercer and against Owen Bell. Owen Bell must pay Leah Mercer $240 in the currency of the deposit. This amount restores the disputed deduction; Leah has already received the remaining $660 of her $900 deposit. 15. Leah’s request for return of the $240 is granted in full. No additional amount, interest, or costs are awarded because none is supported by the supplied record. This order decides only the disputed carpet-cleaning deduction on the evidence presented.