District Court finds landlord guilty in dispute over deposit and plumber payment

District Court Judge Dee found Graham Vale guilty on October 30, 2026, in a dispute brought by tenant Nadia Ellison over her security deposit and a plumbing payment. Ellison sought the return of her $1,600 deposit, reimbursement of $240 paid to a plumber and any additional relief legally available.

The signed judgment contains no explanation of the finding and does not specify whether Ellison is to receive any money. It does not identify an offense or otherwise explain its use of the word “guilty.”

The judgment gives no reasons and makes no express findings about the cabinet, the plumbing payment or the deposit deductions. It does not say how the judge assessed the documents described by the parties.

Ellison told the court she had a signed move-in checklist noting cabinet swelling, a plumber’s receipt and a call log showing two calls on February 12. She acknowledged that the log could not show whether Vale received the calls.

Vale told the court that his contractor’s combined invoice did not separately price the cabinet, cleaning or repainting and therefore did not verify the exact amounts deducted.

Ellison said she reported a damp kitchen cabinet on February 4 and that Vale said he would arrange a visit. She said a pipe connection began dripping heavily on February 12, and she hired a plumber after calling Vale twice without an answer.

Vale disputed receiving the calls and said Ellison had not given him a meaningful opportunity to send his own plumber. He said she had declined a proposed inspection because she would be away.

Ellison disputed the deposit deductions, saying the cabinet was already swollen when she moved in and the apartment needed only ordinary cleaning. Vale attributed the cabinet damage to prolonged moisture and said unusual grease and wall marks justified cleaning and repainting charges.

Ellison said she rented Vale’s Portland apartment for three years. Vale returned none of her $1,600 deposit, attributing $1,200 to cabinet replacement and $400 to cleaning and repainting.

Both parties referred to the February 4 text exchange. Vale said it showed Ellison reported dampness and a musty smell and that he would arrange a look the following week.

Ellison also recalled sending a cabinet photo but said she could not confirm that it had been sent separately and could not offer it as proof. The judgment leaves the parties’ competing accounts and the requested financial relief unresolved in its written terms.