District Court directs return of $240 deposit deduction in carpet stain dispute

Presiding Judge Jacob of the District Court on October 7, 2026, directed Curtis Vance to return the $240 withheld from Erin Bell’s security deposit for carpet cleaning. Bell sought recovery of that deduction without additional damages, while Vance asked to retain it as reimbursement for cleaning a living-room stain.

The judgment granted the return Bell requested. It rested on the judge’s assessment that Vance supplied little evidence and had limited recollection of the relevant events, whereas Bell provided evidence and acted appropriately in contacting him.

The formal judgment gave two brief reasons. Judge Jacob found that Vance had provided little evidence and appeared to have limited recollection. The judge also found that Bell had provided evidence and appropriately contacted Vance, but received no assistance from him.

The hearing addressed two different evidentiary questions: whether Vance had incurred a cleaning expense, and whether the stain could properly be attributed to Bell’s tenancy. Vance described a paid invoice for $240 in spot treatment, but acknowledged that it did not establish when the stain began or who caused it.

Bell described a saved, dated text exchange from her second day in the apartment reporting the brown patch. Neither party had a move-in photograph. Although the formal judgment credited Bell’s evidence generally, it did not separately discuss the text’s authenticity, the invoice’s weight, or whether the stain had become darker.

The judgment did not cite a statute, identify a burden of proof, or set out a broader legal test for deposit deductions. Its stated reasoning remained confined to the parties’ evidence, Vance’s recollection, and Bell’s conduct in reporting the problem.

Bell maintained that she returned the apartment tidy and that the carpet patch was already present when she moved in. She said she reported it on her second day so that she would not later be charged, and that Vance acknowledged her message. She offered to show the saved thread to the court.

Asked why she had not cleaned the stain during the tenancy, Bell said she understood that the existing patch had been noted and was not damage she had caused.

Vance said he believed the stain was worse when Bell left and relied on the paid cleaning invoice to support retaining the deduction. He repeatedly said he could not clearly remember whether Bell had reported the stain at the beginning of the tenancy and could not verify the text she described.

During questioning, Bell objected to a question that assumed an established conversation and a statement that she would not be charged. The judge sustained the objection. That ruling did not itself establish that Vance had promised to waive a cleaning charge.

According to Bell’s account, she rented the Portland apartment for one year and paid a $1,000 deposit. Vance returned $760 and withheld the remaining $240 for the living-room carpet cleaning.

The dispute concerned that deduction alone, not additional damages. The recorded outcome requires its return to Bell, but the brief judgment does not establish a general rule about carpet-cleaning charges or resolve in detail whether the stain changed during her tenancy.