District Court orders return of $350 withheld from deposit for carpet cleaning
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
Neither party had a photograph of the carpet from before the tenancy. Their later images showed a mark or patch but did not capture the whole carpet.
Judgment by Mill · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Nina Calder · Defendant: Evan Mercer
The decision
District Court Judge Mill found Evan Mercer liable to return the $350 he withheld from Nina Calder’s security deposit for carpet cleaning. Calder had sought the return of the deduction; Mercer wanted to keep it.
The dispute turned on competing accounts of a mark on the apartment carpet and whether the cleaning charge could be retained from the deposit.
The court's reasons
Mill said that, in the absence of significant proof that the stain was present beforehand, Mercer had no right to retain the money for standard cleaning.
The judgment did not explain further how the absence of proof about the carpet’s earlier condition related to its conclusion. It did not make a separate finding about the size of the patch or whether Calder caused it.
The parties' submissions
Calder said she vacuumed before moving out and left no serious dirt. She recalled an old, faint mark near the sofa and believed the carpet cleaning would have been done between tenants anyway.
Mercer said he found a dark patch after Calder moved out, paid $350 for cleaning and returned the rest of her deposit. He said he ordered cleaning throughout the apartment, not just at the patch.
The background
Asked about photographs from before Calder moved in, both parties said they had none. Calder said her photograph, taken before she returned the keys, showed a faint mark near the sofa but not the entire carpet.
Mercer said his photograph was taken after Calder moved out and showed the dark patch, but not its size or the wider carpet. The record does not establish the carpet’s condition at the start of the tenancy.