District Court records parties in Caldwell v Voss tenancy deposit dispute
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The District Court’s recorded judgment identifies the parties but does not state any ruling on the disputed $1,420 deposit balance or other relief.
Judgment by Baba · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Erin Caldwell · Defendant: Martin Voss
The decision
Judge Baba signed the District Court’s recorded judgment in the dispute between Erin Caldwell and Martin Voss. Caldwell sought return of a disputed $1,420 deposit balance, while Voss sought to retain the deduction for claimed cleaning, wall repair and key-replacement costs.
The formal judgment does not state whether the court granted or denied either party’s requested relief. It records only that the matter in dispute was between Caldwell, as plaintiff, and Voss, as defendant.
The court's reasons
No reasons, factual findings, evidence assessment, legal analysis or operative order are set out in the supplied formal judgment.
Accordingly, the record does not establish whether the court accepted either party’s account of the apartment’s condition, the claimed expenses, the timing of any itemized statement, or the handling of the keys.
“The matter in dispute is between Erin Caldwell, plaintiff, and Martin Voss, defendant.”
The parties' submissions
Caldwell said she rented a one-bedroom unit at Hawthorne Court for fourteen months and received it in a scuffed and dusty condition. She alleged that old nail holes and faded paint were already present on the living-room wall, that she cleaned before leaving, returned one key at the final walk-through, and later mailed a spare key after finding it.
She contended that Voss used her deposit for routine turnover work rather than damage attributable to her, and sought return of the disputed $1,420 balance together with any available costs or remedies.
Voss said Caldwell received a clean apartment with freshly painted walls and two keys. He alleged that she left numerous oversized holes in the living-room wall, that the oven and bathroom required extensive cleaning, and that one key remained missing when he prepared the unit for a new tenant.
Voss maintained that he provided a timely itemized statement and applied the deposit only to actual turnover expenses. He asked the court to uphold the $1,420 deduction as reasonable.
The background
The dispute concerns deductions from a residential tenancy deposit after Caldwell moved out of the Hawthorne Court unit. The parties gave conflicting accounts of the unit’s move-in condition, the work required after move-out, and the status of the keys.
The judgment was signed by Judge Baba on October 1, 2026. Its recorded outcome is limited to identifying the parties to the dispute; it does not disclose a disposition, monetary award, costs order or the basis on which any claim was resolved.