District Court finds for tenant in dispute over $300 wall repainting deduction

District Court Judge jayoma found in favour of Erin Caldwell in her dispute with Leon Mercer over a $300 security-deposit deduction for repainting a bedroom wall. Caldwell sought return of the money; the written judgment does not expressly order payment.

The dispute turned on when a dark mark appeared: Caldwell said it was already there when she moved into the Columbus apartment, while Mercer said he did not remember seeing it before her tenancy.

The judge's stated reason was that Mercer had failed to provide proof that the mark was absent before Caldwell moved in. The judgment does not explain what weight, if any, the judge gave to the photograph or invoice discussed at the hearing.

Mercer told the court that he had an invoice for the $300 repainting charge, but acknowledged that it did not establish when the mark appeared. He also said he had no proof that the mark was absent before the tenancy.

Caldwell said the bedroom wall was substantially unchanged when she moved out. She told the court that a photograph she took on move-in day showed a dark mark, although she had not recorded it on her signed move-in checklist.

Mercer said the mark was conspicuous when Caldwell moved out and that he paid $300 to have the wall repainted. He considered the deduction fair, but told the court he had no photographs of the apartment from before Caldwell rented it.

Caldwell rented Mercer's apartment for two years. Mercer returned most of her deposit but withheld $300 for repainting.

The judgment, signed on November 7, 2026, identifies Caldwell as the landlord, although the parties' accounts describe her as the tenant and Mercer as the landlord. Beyond finding for Caldwell, it does not specify an operative payment direction.