Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lena Park seeks return of $400 withheld from her security deposit by Graham Ellis. The dispute concerns a bedroom wall repainted after Lena moved out. The record includes an invoice listing a $400 repainting charge and statements from both sides about a photograph of the wall. The parties have both made final submissions, and the record is closed for decision. 2. The invoice is presented evidence and supports that Graham incurred or was charged $400 for repainting. It does not state why the work was needed. The photograph is discussed in the parties’ submissions, but the record describes it only as showing part of the wall; the image’s specific visible details are not described here. No other evidence of the wall’s condition or the reason for repainting is identified. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the evidence establishes that the wall condition involved damage beyond ordinary wear. Lena bears the burden of supporting her claim for relief with specific facts or evidence under Rule 1, and Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary use from negligent or intentional damage. 4. The second issue is whether Graham has shown that retaining $400 from the deposit was justified by an itemized, actual cost tied to damage. Rule 11 favors deductions that are detailed and tied to actual costs; Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. The invoice supports the amount charged, but the reason for the work remains disputed. Submissions of the parties 5. Lena says the wall showed normal wear and tear, that she took photographs to show she did not cause damage, and that Graham should return the withheld deposit. Her submissions do not describe particular marks or other details visible in the photograph. She seeks return of the $400 at issue. 6. Graham argues that the photograph shows only part of the wall and cannot establish the condition of the entire wall. He relies on the $400 invoice as proof that repainting was paid for, but expressly acknowledges that the invoice does not prove why repainting was necessary. In his final submission, Graham states that he has no independent evidence showing that the marks were damage rather than ordinary use. He asks that any amount retained be limited to what the evidence supports. Evidence and findings 7. The invoice is relevant and provides moderate support for the fact and amount of a repainting charge. It is not proof, by itself, that Lena caused damage, that repainting was necessary because of that damage, or that the full charge was properly deductible from the deposit. The same invoice appears more than once in the record; those repeated entries do not provide independent corroboration of the reason for the work. 8. Lena’s statements that the wall showed ordinary wear and that she took photographs are attributed accounts, not a detailed description of the wall’s condition. The record’s description of the photograph as showing only part of the wall limits what can be concluded from it. I do not find that the photograph proves the entire wall was in ordinary condition. Equally, the unseen area is not evidence that it was damaged; Graham expressly recognizes that limitation. 9. On the first issue, Lena has not established the wall’s overall condition with specific evidence in this record. The issue is therefore not proven in the sense that the record does not establish the condition of the whole wall. That finding does not establish that Graham’s deduction was proper. The burden on the deduction issue is Graham’s, and the absence of proof on Lena’s side cannot substitute for proof on his. 10. On the second issue, Graham has established that a $400 repainting charge appears on the invoice, but has not established that the charge was caused by damage beyond ordinary wear or that retaining that amount from the deposit was justified. His final statement confirms that he has no additional evidence on that point. Reasons 11. Rule 1 requires a party seeking relief to point to supporting facts or records. Rule 9 treats ordinary wear differently from negligent or intentional damage. Lena’s general assertion and the limited photograph do not establish the wall’s complete condition. I therefore do not treat the ordinary-wear claim as conclusively proven from the photograph or statements alone. 12. The decisive question for the requested deposit deduction, however, is not whether Lena has conclusively shown that every part of the wall was ordinary wear. Graham seeks to justify keeping money from the deposit for repainting. Under Rule 11, the deduction must be tied to an actual cost with sufficient detail; under Rule 6, the amount retained must match the harm established. The invoice supplies the cost figure but not the necessary connection between that cost and damage attributable to Lena. 13. Graham’s argument that the photograph leaves part of the wall unseen is a fair limitation on Lena’s proof. It does not fill the evidentiary gap in Graham’s own case. Graham candidly states that he has no independent evidence that the marks were damage rather than ordinary use. The court cannot infer damage merely from the fact that repainting occurred or from uncertainty about an unseen area. The burden on the deduction issue remains with Graham, and he has not met it. 14. Lena’s claim succeeds as to the disputed $400 because the record does not support retaining that amount as a deposit deduction. This is not a finding that the photograph proves the whole wall was undamaged, nor a finding that the invoice is false. It is a finding that the invoice proves a charge, while the evidence does not establish that the charge was properly chargeable to Lena. No other amount or separate remedy is supported by the record. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Lena Park, on her claim for return of the disputed deposit deduction. The defendant, Graham Ellis, must pay Lena Park $400 in the currency of the claim. The $400 deduction is not upheld. No additional amount, interest, or costs is awarded because none is established or requested in the supplied record. 16. The result is limited to the $400 repainting deduction presented in this case. The court does not find that the entire wall was proven to be in ordinary condition; it finds that Graham did not prove a sufficient basis to retain the disputed $400 from Lena’s deposit.