Original in-game verdict

1. Background. Jordan Bell rented from Cedar Key Rentals LLC and paid a $900 security deposit. After the tenancy ended and Jordan returned the keys, Cedar Key sent a written deposit accounting and returned $560, while keeping $340 for “professional cleaning.” Jordan challenges that deduction and asks for the $340 back. 2. Issues for determination. The hearing record leaves three material issues. First, whether Cedar Key gave a written accounting that stated specifically the basis for the cleaning deduction, as required by the supplied Oregon rule. Second, whether Cedar Key proved that the $340 was a real tenant-related cleaning expense rather than an unsupported label. Third, the timing of the return of the undisputed portion of the deposit is established and not disputed. 3. Submissions of the parties. Jordan’s position is that the deposit letter only gave a label, not a real explanation. He relies on the absence of a separate cleaning bill, cleaner name, task list, inspection note, or move-out condition report. He also points to his text message saying he cleaned the kitchen and bath before turning in the keys, and to his saved account that he left the apartment in ordinary lived-in condition. Cedar Key’s position is that it did send a written accounting, that the accounting tied the deduction to professional cleaning for Jordan’s apartment, and that Jordan has not shown the charge was invented or unrelated to the unit. Cedar Key acknowledges that the letter is brief and does not include a full invoice or detailed breakdown. 4. Evidence and findings. The court accepts that Cedar Key sent a deposit letter and returned $560 of the $900 deposit. That much is proven by the record. The court also accepts that Jordan said he cleaned before move-out, and that the text exchange shows he told management he had cleaned the kitchen and bath. Those facts support Jordan’s account, but they do not by themselves prove the exact condition of the apartment after surrender. 5. On the first issue, Cedar Key has not proven a specific written accounting. The governing rule requires the landlord to state specifically the basis of the claim. A bare reference to “professional cleaning” is some accounting, but on this record it is not specific enough because it does not explain what was found, what work was done, or why that amount was charged. The defense therefore does not carry its burden on this issue. 6. On the second issue, Cedar Key has also not proven that the $340 was supported by a real tenant-related cleaning need. The record contains no separate invoice, no inspection note, no cleaner identification, and no description of the condition that required the expense. Cedar Key’s own submissions concede that the proof is limited to the written accounting. That is not enough to show the exact charge was justified. Jordan’s evidence is not perfect, but the landlord still had the burden to show the basis for keeping the deposit money, and it did not do so. 7. The third issue is established. The record shows the undisputed portion of the deposit was returned and a written accounting was sent. No live dispute remains about that point, and it does not change the outcome. 8. Reasons. Under the supplied law, a landlord may keep part of a security deposit only for permitted purposes and must give a written accounting that states specifically the basis of the claim. Cedar Key’s letter proves that a deduction was made and that the landlord used the words “professional cleaning.” But proof of a label is not the same as proof of a specific basis. The hearing record contains no detail showing why $340 was necessary, and the landlord’s own submissions repeatedly acknowledge that the proof stops at the letter. Because Cedar Key bears the burden on the accounting and the justification for the deduction, the missing detail means those issues are not proven. 9. Final order. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Jordan Bell. Cedar Key Rentals LLC must pay Jordan Bell $340 in U.S. dollars. Jordan’s request for return of the cleaning deduction is granted in full. No other relief is awarded on this record.