Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Bell seeks return of $240 withheld from her $800 security deposit by Grant Mercer. The accounting records an $800 deposit, a $240 deduction labeled “kitchen cleaning,” and a $560 refund. Nina accepts that she received the $560 and disputes only the $240 deduction. No other relief or amount is supported by the hearing record. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to explain their positions and identify further proof. Nina says she has no additional evidence of the kitchen’s condition. Grant says he cannot provide further evidence of what the cleaner found or cleaned. The hearing is therefore decided on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the record establishes that Nina left a kitchen condition requiring paid cleaning, and whether the $240 deduction is supported as an itemized actual cleaning cost. Nina seeks relief and bears the burden of supporting her request under Rule 1. Rule 11 makes a deduction stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts. Submissions of the parties 4. Nina argues that the accounting proves only that Grant withheld $240, not that she caused a condition making her responsible for that expense. She says her photo showed the stovetop without visible grease, but acknowledges that it did not show the oven or the whole kitchen. She does not claim the photo proves that no cleaning was needed anywhere. Nina emphasizes that the invoice establishes payment for cleaning but contains no condition notes or photographs. She asks for the $240 returned because the record does not connect the expense to her responsibility. 5. Grant says the kitchen was left filthy, that the cleaner came two days after Nina returned the keys, and that no one entered in the meantime. He initially described the $240 as the cleaning invoice. His later account and the presented invoice identify Hearth Finch Cleaning, kitchen cleaning for three hours at $80, and payment by Grant two days after key return. Grant argues that Nina was responsible as the tenant and sole renter. He acknowledges that he has no further evidence of what the cleaner found or cleaned. Evidence and findings 6. The deposit accounting is a presented record and establishes the deposit amount, the $240 deduction, its stated kitchen-cleaning purpose, and the $560 refund. It does not by itself establish whether the deduction was justified. The paid invoice is also presented. It identifies kitchen cleaning, three hours at $80, and payment by Grant two days after key return. It contains no condition notes or photographs and does not separate routine cleaning from additional work. 7. Nina’s statements about the photo are an attributed account, not the photo itself. Her account is limited: she says it showed the stovetop and did not show visible grease there, while conceding it did not show the oven or whole kitchen. The court gives that account weight only as to the limited area described. It cannot establish the condition of the rest of the kitchen. 8. Grant’s statements that the kitchen was filthy and that no one entered between key return and cleaning are also accounts, not independent condition records. The invoice supports that cleaning was paid for, but does not say what the cleaner found. No cleaner’s statement, condition report, or photograph is in the record. The court does not treat Grant’s allegation of a filthy kitchen as established merely because it was asserted. Reasons 9. On the kitchen-condition issue, the evidence does not establish the overall condition at key return. Nina’s limited account of the stovetop does not establish the condition of the oven or other kitchen areas. Grant’s account supports his position that cleaning was needed, but it is not corroborated by a description of the condition or the work. The two-day interval and Grant’s statement that no one entered in between provide context, but do not independently show what condition existed or who caused it. 10. This uncertainty does not automatically entitle Nina to the requested return. Under Rule 1, Nina must support her request with specific facts or records. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than broad accusations, but the absence of a condition report does not turn Nina’s limited photo account into proof about the whole kitchen. On this record, Nina has not established that the kitchen did not require cleaning or that the deduction should be returned. The kitchen-condition issue is therefore not proven in Nina’s favor. 11. On the amount and actual cost, the accounting establishes that $240 was withheld, and the paid invoice provides more detail than Grant’s initial description alone: three hours of kitchen cleaning at $80, totaling $240, paid two days after key return. The invoice is a presented record and supports that Grant incurred a $240 cleaning charge. Its lack of condition notes limits what it proves about responsibility and the work performed, but it does not contradict the stated calculation. Nina has not shown that the invoice is false, that the amount was not paid, or that the $240 deduction exceeds the documented charge. 12. Rule 11 favors deductions that are itemized and tied to actual costs. Here, the accounting identifies the deduction’s purpose and amount, and the invoice identifies the service, hours, rate, and payment. The record is not as detailed as it could be about the specific cleaning tasks or the condition prompting them. But Nina bears the burden on her request for return, and the available records support the amount as an actual cleaning cost. The cost issue is established to that limited extent; this finding does not mean that every assertion about the kitchen’s condition is proven. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Grant Mercer on Nina Bell’s claim for return of the disputed $240. Nina’s request for payment of $240 is denied. Grant is not ordered to pay Nina any amount. The $560 already returned is not disputed, and no further relief is granted. This decision rests on the limited record: the invoice supports the actual $240 charge, while the kitchen’s full condition and the precise work performed remain uncertain.