Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Mercer asks for return of $240 that Glen Pruitt withheld from her security deposit for replacing a garage shelf. Nina’s request is limited to that deduction. Glen opposes returning it. 2. The record contains a deposit deduction notice listing “Garage shelf replacement — $240.” The same notice is presented as exhibits 3 and 5, and again as exhibit 7. The record also contains the parties’ written submissions. No receipt, photograph, or copy of Nina’s text message is presented as an exhibit. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the evidence establishes that Nina caused damage to the shelf. Nina bears the burden on her request for relief under Rule 1, which requires the side seeking relief to point to facts, records, or testimony supporting it. 4. The second issue is whether Glen has shown a sufficient basis to keep the $240 deduction. The supplied Rule 11 says a deposit deduction is stronger when it is itemized and tied to actual costs. Rules 2 and 30 also direct attention to reliable records and proof of condition, cause, and repair cost. Submissions of the parties 5. Nina argues that the notice identifies a replacement charge but does not say what she did to damage the shelf. She says she reported that the shelf sagged while empty four days after moving in. Nina acknowledges that this early report does not prove the shelf was already damaged and that she has no independent record of its condition. She asks only for return of the $240. 6. Glen argues that Nina’s text reporting sagging four days after move-in is the strongest evidence and opposes returning the deduction. His submissions do not describe any particular act by Nina that caused the shelf to break. They also acknowledge that a move-in photograph is unavailable. Nina’s submissions mention that a replacement receipt may show Glen spent $240, but no receipt is included in the record. Evidence and findings 7. The deduction notice is a presented exhibit. It reliably shows that Glen listed a $240 charge for replacing the garage shelf. Its description is limited to the item and amount; it does not state when the shelf was damaged, how it was damaged, or what Nina allegedly did. The repeated presentations of the same notice do not add independent support for its contents. 8. Nina’s account that she sent a text four days after moving in is repeated consistently in her submissions. Glen also accepts that she reported sagging at that time. I therefore find that the record supports that Nina made an early report of sagging. But the text itself is not presented, and the report does not establish the shelf’s condition at move-in or the cause of the sagging. 9. Neither side provides independent evidence of the shelf’s condition before or after the report. No photograph, repair record, receipt, or other direct evidence of cause or cost is presented. The record does not establish that Nina caused damage, nor does it establish that the shelf was already defective or that the charge was not actually incurred. Reasons 10. On the first issue, Nina has not proved that the shelf was already defective when she moved in. Her early report is relevant because it shows she raised the problem soon after moving in, but it is not proof of the shelf’s original condition. Under Rule 1, the court cannot treat Nina’s allegation about the shelf’s condition as established merely because she made the report. The issue of whether Nina caused the damage is not proven. 11. That finding does not by itself decide whether Glen may keep the deduction. The notice is evidence of the amount and the item charged, but it does not connect the charge to tenant-caused damage. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from negligent or intentional damage. The record does not establish which occurred. Glen’s reliance on Nina’s early report does not fill that gap: a report that the shelf sagged does not identify conduct by Nina that caused it to sag or break. 12. Rule 11 calls for a deposit deduction to be itemized and tied to actual costs. The notice identifies the item and amount, but the record contains no receipt or other cost record. Nina’s statement that a receipt may show the expense is an argument about possible proof, not the receipt itself. Under Rules 2 and 30, the court gives the notice weight as proof that Glen listed the charge, but it does not establish the actual cost or the cause of the damage. 13. The burdens are different. Nina’s lack of proof about the shelf’s original condition means she has not established that the shelf was pre-damaged. It does not require her to prove that Glen’s deduction was justified. Glen’s evidence must support keeping the money. On this record, the notice and the parties’ accounts do not sufficiently establish tenant-caused damage or substantiate the replacement cost. The basis for keeping the $240 is therefore not proven. 14. The court does not find that Glen acted dishonestly or that no replacement occurred. Those conclusions are not supported by the record. The decision is narrower: the evidence presented does not adequately support this particular deposit deduction. Nina’s limited request for return of the disputed amount is consistent with Rule 6’s direction that relief match the proven dispute. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for Nina Mercer on the disputed $240 deposit deduction. Glen Pruitt must pay Nina Mercer $240. No additional amount is awarded because no other claim or amount is established in the record. This judgment decides only the disputed shelf deduction and does not determine any other deposit issue.