Original in-game verdict

Background 1. This is a rental-deposit dispute between Lucía Bentancur and Rodolfo Sosa. Lucía says she paid a UYU 18,000 security deposit, moved out, and was entitled to get the money back. Rodolfo says he applied the deposit to an unpaid electricity balance. 2. The court has considered the parties’ written submissions, the WhatsApp message acknowledging receipt of the deposit, the later WhatsApp exchange about checking the light account, and the parties’ closing statements. Issues for determination 3. The material issues are: (a) whether the deposit was paid and received; (b) whether Rodolfo proved a lawful deduction or setoff against the deposit; and (c) what remedy follows, including whether filing costs are supported on this record. Submissions of the parties 4. Lucía’s case is that the deposit was paid, the apartment was inspected, and Rodolfo never produced a final bill or itemized explanation for keeping any part of the money. She asks for return of the full UYU 18,000 and reasonable filing costs. 5. Rodolfo’s case is that the deposit was not simply refundable because he says it was applied to an unpaid UTE balance tied to the studio. He relies on the fact that he mentioned checking the light account after move-out and says the claim should be dismissed. Evidence and findings 6. The strongest evidence in the record is Rodolfo’s own WhatsApp message: “Received the 18,000 deposit. Keep this chat as proof.” That is a direct written acknowledgment that the deposit was paid and received. I find that fact established. 7. The later WhatsApp exchange, in which Lucía asked whether everything was okay and Rodolfo replied that the apartment was okay but he needed to check the light account first, shows only that a utility issue was being considered. It does not show the amount of any debt, the date of any bill, or that any deduction was actually calculated and communicated. 8. Rodolfo’s written submissions and client account say the deposit was applied to an unpaid electricity balance. However, those statements are not enough by themselves. Under the supplied rule on deposit deductions, a deduction is stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. The record here does not contain the final bill, a breakdown, dates, or a clear calculation. 9. I therefore find that Rodolfo did not prove a lawful deduction. The burden on that issue was on the defendant, and it has not been met. 10. As to remedy, Lucía has proved enough to recover the UYU 18,000 deposit itself. Her request for filing costs is not supported with the same clarity on this record. The court will not award that additional amount without a firmer basis. Reasons 11. The case turns on proof, not suspicion. Lucía produced a reliable written acknowledgment of the deposit. Rodolfo produced only a general claim of a light debt and a message showing he wanted to check the account. That is not the same as proof of a valid deduction. 12. The court gives weight to the written message because it is contemporaneous and specific about receipt of the deposit. By contrast, the claimed electricity offset remains vague. The court cannot treat a general assertion of debt as enough to keep someone else’s deposit. 13. The result is not a finding that Rodolfo had no utility issue at all. It is a finding that the record does not prove the amount, timing, or legitimacy of any deduction from the deposit. On this record, the safer and fairer conclusion is that the full deposit remains refundable. 14. The request for filing costs fails only because the record does not clearly support that extra item. That does not defeat Lucía’s main claim for return of the deposit. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Lucía Bentancur, against the defendant, Rodolfo Sosa, for UYU 18,000. 16. Rodolfo Sosa must return UYU 18,000 to Lucía Bentancur. 17. The request for filing costs is denied on the present record. 18. All other relief not expressly granted is denied.