Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bellamy seeks return of $240 withheld from her $900 security deposit by Grant Ellison. The deposit statement lists a $240 deduction for “carpet cleaning—living-room stain” and a $660 refund. Nora asks for the full $240 to be returned. Grant says the deduction matched the amount he paid for carpet cleaning and asks that Nora’s request be denied or reduced. 2. The parties have had a final opportunity to address the evidence and requested relief. The record is closed for decision. No further obtainable proof has been identified, and an adjournment is not available. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the carpet mark was shown to be damage beyond ordinary wear for which Nora could be charged, and whether the $240 cleaning deduction was sufficiently supported and reasonably attributable to her. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts or records supporting it. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from damage. Rule 11 calls for a deposit deduction to be itemized and tied to actual costs. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora argues that the receipt proves only that Grant paid for standard carpet cleaning, not that she caused damage or made that cleaning necessary. She acknowledges a faint mark but relies on the cleaner’s message that the cleaner could not tell whether the patch was dirt or worn carpet and performed no special treatment. She also points to the absence of photographs or a move-in comparison and seeks return of the full $240. 5. Grant argues that he observed a noticeable dark patch where Nora’s couch had stood, that the deposit statement identified a living-room stain, and that the cleaning cost was an actual expense limited to the amount paid. He acknowledges that there are no photographs or move-in comparison notes, that the cleaner could not classify the patch, and that he customarily arranged turnover carpet cleaning. He asks that the full return be denied or that some portion be retained. Evidence and findings 6. The deposit statement, exhibit-3-e1, is a presented record showing the $900 deposit, the $240 carpet-cleaning deduction, and the $660 refund. It identifies a living-room stain but gives no description of its size or condition. It supports that the deduction was itemized and that the stated reason was a stain; it does not independently establish the stain’s cause or severity. 7. The paid receipt, exhibits 4-e2, 5-e2, 6-e2, and 7-e2, is consistent across the record. It supports that Grant paid $240 for “standard carpet cleaning—one apartment.” It lists no separate stain-removal charge. The receipt is good evidence of the payment and amount, but it does not say that Nora’s mark required the service or that the service was beyond routine turnover cleaning. 8. The cleaner’s message, exhibits 4-e3, 5-e3, 6-e3, and 7-e3, is a contemporaneous written exchange presented by both sides. It says the cleaner performed a normal clean, charged no extra amount or treatment, and could not tell whether the patch was dirt or worn carpet. The message is relevant and supports that a patch was observed, but its express uncertainty means it does not establish damage or its cause. 9. Grant’s account that the patch was dark, noticeable, and under Nora’s couch is an attributed observation in his submissions, not a photograph or independent testimony. Nora acknowledges a faint mark. The court accepts that a mark was present, but the parties’ descriptions do not establish its condition before Nora’s tenancy, how it arose, or whether it exceeded ordinary wear. The record contains no move-in comparison or photograph. Grant also acknowledges that he routinely arranged carpet cleaning between tenants. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the court finds that chargeable damage beyond ordinary wear is not proven. The mark’s location under Nora’s couch and its description as a stain provide some support for Grant’s position that it was associated with the occupied living room. But location alone does not establish that Nora caused damage rather than ordinary wear, and the deposit statement’s label is not a condition comparison. Most importantly, the cleaner could not distinguish dirt from worn carpet. The court does not treat that uncertainty as proof that the mark was ordinary wear; it means the record does not establish the opposite either. Applying Rule 9 and the burden in Rule 1, the evidence does not support charging Nora for damage beyond ordinary use. 11. On the second issue, the court finds that the $240 deduction was not shown to be properly chargeable to Nora. The itemization and receipt establish what Grant deducted and that he paid the same amount for standard cleaning. Those facts satisfy the question of whether an actual expense occurred, but not whether Nora was responsible for it. The cleaner performed no special treatment and could not classify the patch. Grant’s acknowledgment that he routinely arranged turnover cleaning further weakens the claim that Nora’s mark caused the full routine-cleaning expense. The record does not provide a supported basis to allocate any particular portion of that expense to her. 12. Grant’s alternative request to retain some amount does not change the result. The court recognizes that the patch was observed and that the cleaning was paid for. But a partial award or deduction cannot be based on speculation about what portion, if any, was caused by Nora. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match proven harm, and no supported amount attributable to chargeable damage has been established. This conclusion does not find that the mark was definitely preexisting or definitely ordinary wear; it resolves the uncertainty against the deduction because the record does not support charging Nora. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Nora Bellamy. Defendant Grant Ellison must pay Nora Bellamy $240, representing the carpet-cleaning amount withheld from her security deposit. Nora’s request for return of that $240 is granted in full. Grant’s request to deny or reduce the return is denied. The court makes no additional award because no other amount or basis for relief is established in this record.