Parties settle $240 cleaning-deduction dispute with $150 payment and no admission of fault

Elena Finch and Warren Bell settled their dispute over a $240 security-deposit deduction on terms requiring a $150 payment within seven days after written acceptance, without an admission of fault. Finch had sought the return of the deduction in small claims court in Madison; Bell wanted her request denied or materially reduced.

The dispute concerned not simply whether Bell had paid for cleaning, but what that payment covered. The cleaner’s $240 invoice combined work in the apartment’s kitchen with work in a shared entry, without separating the cost of either area.

The settlement resolves the claims concerning the deduction. The supplied record contains no judicial ruling on whether Bell was entitled to withhold the money.

The recorded terms provide for a $150 payment within seven days after written acceptance, no admission of fault, and a full and final resolution of claims concerning the security-deposit deduction. Each side will bear its own costs.

The terms do not expressly identify the payer or recipient, or state when written acceptance occurred. They also do not assign a price to the kitchen cleaning or the shared-entry work.

Finch sought repayment of the disputed $240. The record states that the apartment had been cleaned before surrender, but does not include a detailed submission from her.

Bell maintained that the kitchen still needed attention even though most of the apartment looked tidy. He said he had withheld only the amount he paid the cleaner and regarded the charge as a fair expense rather than a penalty.

Bell acknowledged that the invoice also covered the entry. He could not personally explain how the cleaner divided the time between the two areas and did not recall a specific rental-agreement clause addressing cleaning charges or allocation of shared-entry costs.

After Finch moved out, Bell hired a cleaner, paid the $240 invoice and withheld that amount from the security deposit. A text from the cleaner confirmed the $240 visit, but, like the invoice, supplied no price allocation.

Separate prices or hours had not been requested at booking, and the record identifies no witness able to describe the cleaner’s time allocation. The payment documents therefore supported the fact of the expense without resolving how much related to each area.

The settlement closes the deduction dispute without deciding whether all, part or none of that combined expense could properly be charged to Finch. It leaves the competing interpretations of the cleaning bill unresolved rather than establishing a rule for future deposit claims.