Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Liat Shalev rented an apartment from Oren Dagan. The signed lease required return of the apartment in its received condition while allowing for ordinary wear. The deposit was ₪6,000. The deposit-return entry records that ₪4,800 was returned and ₪1,200 was withheld for repainting the living room (exhibit-3-e1). 2. Liat asks for the withheld ₪1,200. She acknowledges that dark marks appeared on the living-room walls after her tenancy. Oren says he noticed the marks after Liat left and argues that the deduction matched a painter’s estimate. The hearing is closed, and no further obtainable proof has been identified. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the marks were damage chargeable to Liat rather than ordinary wear. The second is whether withholding the full ₪1,200 was justified. Under the supplied rules, ordinary wear is not misconduct (Rule 9), deposit deductions should be detailed and tied to actual costs (Rule 11), and losses should be handled reasonably with a remedy matching the proven harm (Rules 5 and 6). Oren bears the burden of supporting the deduction he made from the deposit. Submissions of the parties 4. Liat submits that the lease expressly allows ordinary wear and that the record does not describe the walls when she moved in. She accepts that the photograph shows marks but argues that the photograph does not establish when they arose, whether they were beyond ordinary wear, or whether repainting was needed. She emphasizes that the painter’s estimate called for washing first and repainting only if washing failed. She requests return of the full ₪1,200 and says she has no further independent evidence. 5. Oren submits that he did not notice the marks before Liat left, that he saw them afterward, and that the painter estimated repainting at ₪1,200. He argues that the amount was not arbitrary and that the lease permitted a deduction for damage beyond ordinary wear. His client account also says he believed the marks were not ordinary wear because he thought the walls needed repainting. However, that account acknowledges he did not check whether the marks could be cleaned (exhibit-6-client-statement:63). Evidence and findings 6. The signed lease and deposit-return entry are reliable evidence that the deposit was ₪6,000, that ₪4,800 was returned, and that the remaining ₪1,200 was identified as a living-room repainting deduction. The lease also contains the ordinary-wear exception. It does not describe the walls at move-in (exhibit-3-e1). The repeated copies of this same entry in the record do not provide additional independent proof. 7. The painter’s WhatsApp capture shows a photograph of several gray streaks near furniture height and a ₪1,200 repainting estimate. It is evidence that marks were visible in the photograph and that repainting was proposed at that price. It does not show the walls’ condition at move-in, establish when the marks arose, or show that washing failed. The capture contains no payment confirmation or evidence that repainting was completed (exhibit-6-e2). 8. Oren’s saved client answers say he noticed the marks after Liat left and did not notice them before she left (exhibit-6-client-statement:57; exhibit-8-client-statement:49, :51). These are attributed accounts, not independent records or admitted testimony. They support Oren’s explanation of when he observed the marks, but do not establish the walls’ condition at the start of the tenancy or prove that Liat caused damage beyond ordinary wear. Liat’s submissions acknowledge the marks; that acknowledgment does not concede that they were chargeable damage. Reasons 9. On the first issue, the defendant has not proven that the marks were chargeable damage. The photograph and Liat’s acknowledgment establish that marks existed, and Oren’s account supports that he noticed them after she left. But the lease makes the distinction between ordinary wear and chargeable damage important. There is no move-in description or comparison, and the photograph alone does not resolve that distinction. Oren’s belief that repainting was needed is not enough, particularly because he acknowledged that he did not test whether cleaning would work. Applying Rule 9 and the burden-of-proof rule, this issue is not proven against Liat. 10. On the second issue, the defendant has not proven that the full ₪1,200 deduction was justified. The deposit entry itemizes the stated reason and amount, and the estimate supports that ₪1,200 was a proposed repainting price. Those facts show the basis Oren used for the deduction; they do not establish that the work was necessary or that the amount was an actual, reasonable cost. The estimate was conditional on washing failing, and the record does not show that washing was attempted or that repainting was done or paid for. Under Rules 5, 6, and 11, the deduction must be tied to a proven need and a reasonable amount. The condition for repainting remains unproven, so the full deduction cannot stand. 11. Liat has candidly acknowledged that she has no separate evidence proving the marks were ordinary wear. That gap does not shift Oren’s burden to justify money he withheld. The result is not a finding that the marks were certainly ordinary wear, nor a finding that Oren acted dishonestly. It is a finding that the available record does not prove a chargeable loss or justify the amount retained. Oren’s request to retain or reduce the refund is therefore denied. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Liat Shalev. The defendant, Oren Dagan, must pay Liat ₪1,200, representing the deposit amount withheld for repainting. No additional amount, interest, or costs is awarded because none is supported by the supplied record. This order resolves only the disputed ₪1,200 deduction.