Parties settle $240 wall-repainting deposit dispute with $60 refund to tenant

Evan Baird and Colleen Mercer settled their dispute over a $240 wall-repainting deduction with an agreement to refund Baird $60, leaving Mercer with $180 of the disputed amount. Baird had sought the return of the withheld money in small claims court in Madison; the record contains no judicial ruling on whether the charge was justified.

The dispute centred on whether repainting a living-room wall was a repair attributable to Baird’s hooks or a cost that should not have been deducted from his security deposit. Mercer maintained that the hooks had pulled paint from the wall, but she had discussed painting with the painter eight days before Baird moved out.

The settlement provides for a $60 refund to Baird, no admission of liability and a mutual release limited to this dispute. It resolves the contested deduction without establishing that either party’s account was correct.

Mercer had already returned $560 of the $800 security deposit. The additional refund reduces the amount she retains for repainting from $240 to $180. The recorded terms do not specify a payment deadline or method.

Baird sought recovery of the $240 withheld from his deposit. The supplied record does not contain a detailed statement of his arguments or any courtroom testimony.

Mercer sought to uphold the deduction or reduce any refund. She said she withheld only the painter’s charge for the living-room wall and regarded repainting as a reasonable response to paint damage caused by the hooks. She denied that the charge was unrelated to the wall’s condition.

A paid $240 painter’s invoice supported the amount charged. A painter’s message also estimated about $240, including light preparation, once the room was empty. Those documents recorded the cost of the work, but no pre- or post-painting photographs documenting the hooks or wall condition were available.

The painter repainted the living-room wall after Baird moved out. Mercer then withheld $240 and supplied an accounting identifying the repainting deduction. The record also identifies text messages containing move-out instructions.

The precise move-out date was not recalled, and Mercer did not recall the exact painting date. The earlier discussion with the painter and the absence of wall-condition photographs left important context unresolved: the record documented a repainting expense, but contained no judicial assessment of how much of that expense Baird should bear.

The settlement closes that narrow dispute through a partial refund and limited mutual release. It does not determine whether the original deduction was legally permissible or establish a rule for other rental-deposit claims.