Madison small claims court orders return of $240 carpet deduction after routine cleaning

The small claims court in Madison ordered Grant Ellison to return the $240 he withheld from Nora Bellamy’s security deposit for carpet cleaning. It granted Bellamy’s request in full and rejected Ellison’s request to deny or reduce the refund. No additional amount was awarded.

The dispute turned on a distinction between paying a cleaning bill and showing that a tenant was responsible for it. A mark remained where Bellamy’s couch had stood, but the evidence did not establish that it was damage beyond ordinary wear or that it made the $240 service necessary.

The deposit statement described the deduction as cleaning for a living-room stain. That established the stated reason for withholding money, but supplied no description of the mark’s size or condition and did not prove its cause or severity.

The receipt established that Ellison paid $240 for standard carpet cleaning of one apartment. It listed no separate stain-removal charge. In a contemporaneous message, the cleaner said only a normal clean had been performed, with no extra treatment or charge, and could not determine whether the patch was dirt or worn carpet.

The court accepted that a mark existed. But its location under Bellamy’s couch did not establish who caused it or whether it exceeded ordinary wear. There were no photographs or move-in comparisons, and Ellison acknowledged that he routinely arranged carpet cleaning between tenants.

Applying the recorded rules on ordinary wear and supported deposit deductions, the court distinguished an actual expense from an expense properly attributable to Bellamy. It also rejected a partial deduction: no evidence supported allocating any particular portion of the bill to tenant-caused damage.

Bellamy acknowledged a faint mark but argued that the receipt proved only that cleaning had been paid for. She relied on the cleaner’s uncertainty and the absence of evidence comparing the carpet before and after her tenancy. Those gaps, she submitted, supported neither the full deduction nor a smaller one.

Ellison described a noticeable dark patch directly beneath the former couch location. He argued that its location connected it to Bellamy’s use of the apartment and stressed that the deduction matched his out-of-pocket expense without a markup.

Ellison acknowledged the lack of photographs, comparison notes and stain-specific treatment. He nevertheless asked to retain at least part of the payment because a mark had been observed and cleaning costs had been incurred.

Bellamy’s deposit was $900. The statement recorded a $240 carpet-cleaning deduction and a $660 refund. After she moved out, Ellison noticed the patch and arranged the standard cleaning at issue.

The judgment does not establish that the mark was preexisting or definitely ordinary wear. Its narrower conclusion is that the available evidence did not justify charging Bellamy, despite proof that Ellison had paid the cleaning bill.