Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Ellis seeks return of $250 that defendant Calvin Redd withheld from her rental deposit as a cleaning charge. Nora says she cleaned the apartment when she moved out and that it was clean. Calvin relies on a cleaning invoice for $250. He acknowledges that the invoice assigns part of the charge to another space and does not show that the entire charge related to Nora’s apartment. 2. The supplied record contains the parties’ submissions and three entries for the same cleaning invoice. It contains no move-out inspection record or deduction notice. Calvin states that the invoice is his only cleaning record. No separate evidence establishes the apartment’s condition after move-out or the amount of work, if any, attributable to it. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Nora has shown that the $250 deduction, or a particular part of it, should be returned because it was not justified or properly tied to her apartment. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support it with facts, records, or testimony. Rules 2 and 11 favor reliable records and deductions that are detailed and tied to actual costs. Rule 6 requires that any remedy match what the evidence supports. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora’s position is that she cleaned the apartment in good faith and left it clean, so Calvin should return the $250. She also says she was a good tenant and needs the money for her new place. Those points explain her position and circumstances, but the relevant question is whether the deduction was unsupported or excessive. 5. Calvin argues that the invoice shows a cleaning cost was incurred after Nora moved out, while conceding it does not show that all $250 was for her apartment. He notes that Nora’s photo, as described in the record, shows only limited areas and does not establish the condition of every room. The supplied record does not include the photo itself. Calvin asks that Nora’s request be denied or reduced to an amount the evidence supports. He also states that he has no inspection record or deduction notice and cannot identify a specific amount attributable to Nora’s apartment. Evidence and findings 6. The invoice is presented as an exhibit and is described as listing a $250 cleaning charge after Nora moved out. Its existence supports that a charge was incurred. Its weight is limited on the disputed allocation: the exhibit description expressly notes that the itemized detail assigns part of the charge to another space. The invoice therefore does not establish that Nora’s apartment caused the full charge, or establish a particular smaller amount attributable to it. 7. Nora’s statements that she cleaned and left the apartment clean are attributed accounts, not independent records or admitted testimony. They are relevant, but the record gives no specific description of the apartment’s condition, the rooms cleaned, or any observation made at move-out. Calvin’s statement that the photo covers only limited areas is also an argument about a photo described in the record; the photo itself is not supplied here. Neither side’s account resolves the condition of the apartment as a whole. 8. Calvin’s statement that he has no inspection record or deduction notice is part of his submission. The record does not establish that such documents exist or are obtainable. Their absence leaves the court without evidence of the apartment’s condition, the basis for the deduction, or a clearer allocation. The court does not treat the invoice as automatically conclusive merely because it is presented, nor does it disregard the invoice’s support for an actual cleaning charge. Reasons 9. Nora bears the burden because she asks the court to order return of the withheld money. Her account that she cleaned is some support for her claim, but it does not establish that no cleaning was needed or that the full deduction was improper. Her general statements about being a good tenant and needing the money do not prove the apartment’s condition or the proper amount of a refund. 10. The invoice does not fill that gap in either direction. It supports that a $250 charge was incurred, but its allocation to another space prevents the court from finding that the full amount was attributable to Nora’s apartment. It also does not establish which tasks were necessary because of Nora’s tenancy. Calvin’s concession is appropriate and limits what can fairly be inferred from the invoice; it is not proof of a particular smaller charge. 11. Rule 11 favors a deduction supported by detail and tied to actual costs. The invoice provides some cost evidence, but the record lacks the detail needed to connect a specific amount to Nora’s apartment. Rule 6 likewise prevents the court from selecting an arbitrary partial refund or allowing a specific amount to be retained without a reliable basis. The court cannot calculate a fair allocation from the evidence supplied. 12. Because Nora has not established a specific amount due back, her request for $250 is not proven. This ruling does not find that Calvin proved the entire $250 was properly chargeable to Nora’s apartment. Rather, the burden on Nora’s claim for relief remains unmet, and the record does not support a different monetary award. The court decides only the claim and evidence presented here. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Calvin Redd on Nora Ellis’s claim for return of the $250 cleaning deduction. Nora’s request for a $250 refund is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. The ruling is limited to the supplied record and does not establish that the full cleaning charge was attributable to Nora’s apartment.