Brașov civil court denies return of 900 lei deposit deduction over disputed wall marks

The Civil court in Brașov denied Irina Pavel’s request for the return of 900 lei withheld from her rental deposit by Sorin Dobre for repainting a desk wall. No payment was ordered in either direction, leaving Dobre with the disputed sum.

The result did not establish that Pavel damaged the wall or that the repainting charge was justified. Instead, the court concluded that she had not proved her entitlement to repayment. The dispute turned on what could be established about the marks—not simply on whether money had been withheld.

The accepted bank record established the financial facts: Pavel paid a 2,000 lei deposit, Dobre returned 1,100 lei and retained 900 lei for repainting the desk wall. It did not establish the wall’s condition, who caused the marks, whether repainting was necessary or what it cost.

The court gave some weight to Pavel’s account of messages about marks near the desk before she moved in. But the messages were not presented as an exhibit, and her account did not identify every mark or establish the wall’s precise starting condition.

Missing photographs and a signed condition report left the court without a reliable comparison. Their absence was not proof that the marks were new or tenant-caused. Nor did a produced estimate, itemized bill or paid invoice establish a reasonable repainting expense.

The supplied deposit and ordinary-wear rules weakened Dobre’s explanation because the deduction was not tied to demonstrated costs or damage caused by Pavel. Nevertheless, the court placed the burden of supporting the repayment request on her: weaknesses in his explanation did not themselves establish her right to recover the full amount. It also rejected a proposed division of costs because no evidence supported particular shares of responsibility.

Pavel argued that proof of a deduction was not proof of its justification. She said she had raised desk-area marks before moving in and that Dobre described the paint as old. She acknowledged having no dated photographs, signed condition report or independent evidence establishing the wall’s exact condition.

Dobre disputed that the marks at issue had been identified before the tenancy. His side emphasized the lack of move-in photographs, argued that Pavel could have reported the marks during her tenancy and suggested that both parties should contribute to the cost.

Although an unsigned painter’s estimate was referenced, the judgment treated it as an argument rather than a produced document. Dobre’s submissions did not establish either responsibility for the marks or an actual repainting cost.

The dispute arose after Pavel moved out and Dobre retained part of her deposit for repainting. He attributed dark marks near the desk to her and regarded them as beyond ordinary use; she challenged charging her for marks whose origin remained uncertain.

The decision resolves the repayment claim on the available proof, not the underlying history of the wall. It leaves unresolved when the marks appeared, whether they amounted to damage rather than ordinary wear, and whether 900 lei reflected a reasonable expense.