Madison small claims court denies tenant’s request to recover $240 kitchen-cleaning deduction

The small claims court in Madison denied Nina Bell’s request to recover $240 withheld from her security deposit for kitchen cleaning, entering judgment for her former landlord, Grant Mercer. Bell had received the remaining $560 of her $800 deposit; only the cleaning deduction was disputed.

The decision turned on the difference between proving a cleaning expense and proving the condition that prompted it. A paid invoice supported Mercer’s $240 expense, while the kitchen’s overall condition remained uncertain. That uncertainty did not, the court concluded, establish Bell’s entitlement to a refund.

The court placed the burden on Bell to support her request for repayment. It found that the deposit accounting and paid invoice documented three hours of kitchen cleaning at $80 an hour, paid two days after she returned the keys.

Those records had limits. The accounting alone did not establish that the deduction was justified. The invoice contained no condition notes or photographs and did not distinguish routine cleaning from additional work. It nevertheless supported the amount as an actual expense, and Bell had not shown that it was false, unpaid or less than the sum withheld.

The court also distinguished Bell’s description of a stovetop photograph from the photograph itself, which was not presented. Her account—that no grease was visible—received weight only for that limited area, not the oven or the rest of the kitchen.

Mercer’s claims that the kitchen was filthy and that nobody entered before the cleaner arrived were likewise accounts, not independent condition records. The court did not accept the alleged filth as established merely because he asserted it. But the missing evidence did not prove Bell’s refund claim either.

Bell argued that proof of payment was not proof of her responsibility. She acknowledged that her described photograph did not establish that the entire kitchen was clean, but maintained that the invoice failed to connect the particular $240 expense to a condition she had caused.

Mercer argued that the deduction matched his actual cleaning bill and concerned only the kitchen. He said Bell had left it dirty and that no one entered during the two days between key return and cleaning. He acknowledged that he could provide no further evidence of what the cleaner found or cleaned.

After Bell returned the keys, Mercer paid Hearth Finch Cleaning $240 and withheld that amount from her deposit. Both parties ultimately said they had no additional condition evidence to offer, leaving the court to decide on the accounting, invoice and their limited accounts.

The ruling leaves the precise cleaning tasks and the kitchen’s full condition unresolved. It establishes only that the documented expense, considered alongside Bell’s burden to support repayment, was sufficient to defeat this $240 claim. No further relief was granted.