Montevideo civil court orders return of UYU 18,000 rental deposit

The Montevideo civil court entered judgment for Lucía Bentancur and directed Rodolfo Sosa to return her UYU 18,000 rental deposit. Bentancur had sought the deposit’s return and reasonable filing costs after Sosa said he had applied the money to an unpaid electricity balance.

The court granted recovery of the full deposit but denied the request for filing costs, finding that the additional amount was not sufficiently supported on the record. All other relief was denied.

• Rodolfo Sosa must return UYU 18,000 to Lucía Bentancur.
• Bentancur's request for filing costs is denied.
• All other relief not expressly granted is denied.

The court found that Bentancur had established payment and receipt of the deposit through Sosa's WhatsApp message stating: “Received the 18,000 deposit. Keep this chat as proof.” The judgment treated that contemporaneous message as direct written acknowledgment of the deposit.

A later WhatsApp exchange showed that, after the move-out inspection, Sosa said the apartment was okay but that he needed to check the light account. The court held that this exchange showed only that a utility issue was under consideration; it did not establish the amount of any debt, the date of a bill, or that a deduction had been calculated and communicated.

Sosa's account was that the deposit had been applied to an unpaid UTE electricity balance tied to the studio. But the court found no final bill, itemized breakdown, dates, or clear calculation in the record. It held that Sosa, as the party relying on the deduction or setoff, had not proved a lawful basis to retain any part of the deposit.

The court said the result did not determine that no utility issue existed. Rather, it found that the record did not prove the amount, timing, or legitimacy of a deduction from the deposit. It therefore concluded that the full amount remained refundable.

“The case turns on proof, not suspicion.”

Bentancur submitted that she paid UYU 18,000, moved out after an inspection, and received no itemized explanation for the withholding. She relied on the deposit acknowledgment message and argued that Sosa had produced no final electricity bill, dates, or calculation supporting a deduction.

She sought return of the full deposit and reasonable filing costs, maintaining that the written acknowledgment proved receipt but did not establish any later entitlement to retain the money.

Sosa argued that the deposit was not immediately refundable because it had been applied to an unpaid UTE balance. He referred to the post-inspection message about checking the light account and sought dismissal of the claim, or alternatively a reduction by the electricity balance.

The court recorded that Sosa's submissions and client account asserted an electricity offset, but did not provide independent documentary proof of the claimed charge or its amount.

The dispute arose from a rental of a studio apartment. The parties agreed that Bentancur paid an UYU 18,000 deposit on move-in and that a move-out inspection later occurred.

Following the inspection, Bentancur asked whether everything was okay and whether the deposit would be sent. Sosa replied that the apartment was okay but that he needed to check the light account first. He later maintained that the deposit had been used against an unpaid electricity balance.

The record included the deposit acknowledgment and the move-out WhatsApp exchange, but not a final UTE bill, an itemized deduction notice, or a calculation of any utility debt. The judgment resolves the deposit claim on that evidentiary record and does not make a broader finding on whether an electricity balance existed outside the unproved setoff.