Haifa small claims court orders ₪1,200 deposit refund over unproven repainting need

The Small claims court in Haifa ordered landlord Oren Dagan to return ₪1,200 withheld from tenant Liat Shalev’s deposit for repainting living-room walls. It granted her refund claim in full and rejected his request to retain the money or reduce the refund.

The dispute was not whether the walls had dark marks: Shalev acknowledged them. The question was whether those marks justified charging her for repainting when the lease allowed ordinary wear and the painter had recommended washing first.

No additional amount, interest or costs was awarded. The order resolves only the disputed ₪1,200 deduction.

Dagan bore the burden of justifying the deduction. The lease and deposit-return entry established the amount withheld and its stated purpose, but neither described the walls at the start of the tenancy.

The painter’s WhatsApp photograph showed several gray streaks near furniture height. It did not establish when they arose, whether they exceeded ordinary wear or whether washing could remove them. Dagan’s accounts of noticing the marks after Shalev left were attributed accounts, not independent records or admitted testimony establishing the original wall condition.

The ₪1,200 estimate proved a proposed price, not a need to repaint. It was conditional on washing failing, yet the record did not show that washing had been attempted. Nor was there evidence of completed repainting or payment.

Applying the supplied rules requiring deductions to match proven harm and reasonable costs, the court found both chargeable damage and the full repainting expense unproven. Shalev’s lack of separate evidence that the marks were ordinary wear did not transfer Dagan’s burden to her.

Shalev argued that acknowledging visible marks was not an admission of damage beyond normal use. She relied on the lease’s ordinary-wear exception, the absence of a move-in wall description and the painter’s recommendation to wash before repainting.

Dagan argued that the deduction was not arbitrary: it matched a professional painter’s estimate. His counsel submitted that the price suggested a substantial problem and that the lease permitted use of the deposit for damage beyond ordinary wear.

Shalev answered that a repainting price could not establish that repainting was necessary. She acknowledged having no further independent evidence and sought the full refund on the limits of the existing proof.

Shalev paid a ₪6,000 deposit under a lease requiring the apartment’s return in its received condition, subject to ordinary wear. After she moved out, Dagan returned ₪4,800 and retained the balance for living-room repainting.

The judgment did not establish that the marks were certainly ordinary wear or that Dagan acted dishonestly. Its narrower conclusion was that the available evidence did not prove a chargeable loss or justify the amount retained.