Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Irina Pavel seeks repayment of 900 lei withheld from her rental deposit by Sorin Dobre. The parties accept that the deposit was 2,000 lei, that Sorin returned 1,100 lei, and that the payment note described the remaining 900 lei as retained for repainting the desk wall. Irina asks for the 900 lei back. The hearing is closed, and the decision is based on the supplied record and rules. Issues for determination 2. The sole material issue is whether Irina has proved that she is entitled to repayment of the 900 lei deduction. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting that request. The supplied deposit rule says a deduction is stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. The supplied rule on ordinary wear distinguishes normal use from damage. The remedy must also match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 3. Irina argues that the bank record proves the deduction but not that she caused the marks or that 900 lei was a fair charge. She says messages support that she raised marks near the desk before moving in and that Sorin described the paint as old. She acknowledges that she has no dated photographs, signed condition report, or other independent proof establishing the wall’s precise condition when she moved in. She maintains her request for the full 900 lei. 4. Sorin disputes that the marks were identified before the tenancy and emphasizes the absence of dated move-in photographs. He argues that Irina could have reported the marks during the tenancy and suggests that both parties should pay for the damage. His submissions do not identify evidence showing who caused the marks or documenting the actual repainting cost. One submission refers to a painter’s unsigned estimate, but no estimate is included among the presented exhibits, and the record supplies no details of its amount or basis. That reference is an argument, not a produced document. Evidence and findings 5. The accepted bank record, presented as exhibits 3, 5, and 7, establishes that Sorin returned 1,100 lei from the 2,000 lei deposit and retained 900 lei with the stated purpose of repainting the desk wall. The parties accept those amounts. The record is reliable for the payment and the stated purpose. It does not establish the wall’s condition, who caused any marks, whether repainting was necessary, or what repainting actually cost. 6. Irina’s submissions are consistent in acknowledging the limits of her proof. Her account of the messages supports that she raised marks near the desk and that Sorin described the paint as old. But the messages themselves are not presented as an exhibit, and Irina expressly says they do not establish every mark or the exact move-in condition. I therefore give that account some weight as an attributed explanation, but it does not resolve the disputed condition or cause. 7. Sorin’s submissions likewise do not establish that Irina caused the marks. The absence of dated photographs or a signed condition report leaves uncertainty; it is not affirmative proof that the marks were new or tenant-caused. Sorin’s suggestion that Irina should have reported the marks during the tenancy does not establish when they appeared or who was responsible. No itemized bill, paid invoice, or produced estimate establishes the amount of a reasonable repainting cost. Reasons 8. Irina bears the burden of proving her request for repayment. The bank record proves that 900 lei was withheld, but proof of withholding alone does not prove that Irina is entitled to recover it. The remaining evidence does not establish the wall’s condition at the start or end of the tenancy, the cause of the marks, or the reasonable cost of addressing them. The uncertainty is material to whether the deduction represented a tenant-caused loss rather than ordinary wear or a pre-existing condition. 9. The supplied deposit rule weighs against treating an unsupported, unitemized deduction as well justified. The ordinary-wear rule also cautions against charging a tenant for normal aging. Those rules make Sorin’s explanation weak: the record does not show an actual cost or connect the marks to Irina. But the court must also apply the burden assigned to Irina. A weakness in Sorin’s explanation does not, by itself, establish the facts needed to grant Irina’s requested repayment. On this record, the evidence does not sufficiently prove that the deduction was improper in a way that entitles Irina to the full 900 lei. 10. Sorin’s proposed shared payment does not change the result. No evidence supports a division of responsibility or a particular share. The court therefore does not find that Irina caused the marks, that Sorin proved a valid 900 lei expense, or that the parties should split a proven loss. Rather, Irina’s claim fails because the available evidence leaves the essential facts unresolved and she bears the burden of supporting repayment. The court does not treat Sorin’s unsupported assertions as proof. Final order 11. Irina Pavel’s claim for repayment of 900 lei is denied. No payment is ordered from Sorin Dobre to Irina Pavel, and no payment is ordered from Irina Pavel to Sorin Dobre. The accepted record establishes that Sorin retained 900 lei for repainting, but the court makes no finding that Irina caused the marks or that 900 lei was an actual, reasonable repainting cost. The claim is denied because Irina has not proved entitlement to the requested repayment on the available record.