Franklin County Municipal Court enters judgment for tenant in key-deposit dispute

Franklin County Municipal Court entered judgment for Erin Caldwell in her dispute with Pine Hollow Rentals LLC over a $150 security-deposit withholding for a rekey charge. The recorded verdict states that the court entered judgment for the other side after Pine Hollow did not complete the proceeding.

Caldwell had sought return of the $150 deposit and allowable court costs. The verdict records a full-relief disposition, but the formal judgment is blank and does not state a monetary award, costs, or further directions.

The record does not contain written reasons from the court. During the hearing, however, the judge's notes identified the central factual issue as whether Caldwell followed Pine Hollow's move-out instructions and whether the landlord proved that the key had not been returned.

The materials reflected conflicting instructions. Pine Hollow relied on a standard move-out sheet requiring tenants to return keys to the leasing office during business hours or use a designated drop box. Caldwell relied on a June 29 text from a number identified in her contacts as Pine Hollow Leasing stating: "If office is closed, leave keys on kitchen counter and pull door shut behind you."

The judge's notes treated the text as supporting Caldwell's account, while recognizing that Pine Hollow's rekey invoice supported its assertion that it incurred a $150 charge. The notes also said the invoice did not itself establish that Caldwell failed to return the key or explain why it was missing.

The recorded disposition ultimately rests on Pine Hollow's failure to complete the proceeding, rather than a formal written finding resolving the competing accounts of the move-out.

Caldwell submitted that Pine Hollow retained her $150 deposit without proving tenant-caused loss. She argued that the rekey invoice showed only a later expense, not that she had failed to follow the landlord's instructions.

She said she left the keys on the kitchen counter after receiving the June 29 text permitting that method if the office was closed. Caldwell acknowledged that she had no photograph showing the keys on the counter, but maintained that the text was the best written record of the instruction.

Pine Hollow submitted a move-out instruction sheet and a July 2 rekey invoice for $150. It argued that the lease and written move-out materials required return through the office or drop box, and that Caldwell had said in later phone communications that she would take care of the key return.

The landlord further contended that staff did not find the key in the unit and that it made follow-up calls after Caldwell moved out. But its account of those calls was presented through client statements rather than independently verified written follow-up or admitted witness testimony.

The dispute arose after Caldwell moved out following an eviction notice. The record says the notice instructed her to move out and return keys, but it does not specify the period she was given to vacate.

Pine Hollow withheld the deposit for a rekey expense after asserting that the key was not returned through its required process and was not found in the unit. Caldwell disputed that premise, relying on the text message that authorized leaving keys on the kitchen counter when the office was closed.

The outcome is limited by the sparse formal record. Although the verdict identifies Caldwell as the prevailing party and labels the disposition full relief, it does not provide a signed judgment, a stated damages figure, or a ruling on costs.