In a compelling case before Judge Judy, Liya sued her landlord for the return of her security deposit after moving out of her rental apartment. The dispute arose when Liya gave only five days’ notice to her landlord before leaving the property, despite her lease agreement requiring a 30-day notice.
Although Liya had not adhered to the full notice requirement, she argued that she was still entitled to her full security deposit, claiming the apartment was left in good condition when she vacated it.
Liya, the plaintiff, explained the situation to Judge Judy, stating that she had to move quickly due to unforeseen personal circumstances. “I had no choice but to leave within a short time, and I wasn’t able to give the 30-day notice required,” she said.
“Despite that, I made sure the apartment was clean and in good shape when I left. I expected my deposit back.”
The landlord, however, had a different perspective. According to him, Liya’s failure to provide proper notice meant she forfeited part of the deposit. “She didn’t follow the lease terms by providing enough notice, and there were minor repairs that needed to be made after she moved out,” the landlord said.
“I used the deposit to cover those repairs.” He further explained that the apartment required cleaning and some maintenance work that had to be addressed before the next tenant could move in.
Judge Judy quickly honed in on the central issue of the case—whether Liya’s failure to give sufficient notice justified the landlord’s decision to keep the deposit and use it for repairs.
“You didn’t give the full 30 days’ notice, but did those repairs really justify keeping the entire deposit?” Judge Judy asked. “Did the damages amount to the full deposit?”
The landlord maintained that the repairs and cleaning costs added up, but he could not provide adequate documentation of the costs or detailed receipts showing exactly what was done with the deposit money.
Judge Judy raised a critical point: “Just because she didn’t give proper notice doesn’t give you the right to withhold the deposit without clear proof of how it was used.”
After carefully considering both sides, Judge Judy ruled in favor of Liya. “The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that the deposit was properly used for repairs. You can’t just take someone’s deposit because they didn’t follow the notice requirement without showing how the money was spent,” she said.
“It’s clear to me that the landlord failed to document the expenses appropriately and tried to use the deposit as a way to cover costs that may not have been justified.”
In her ruling, Judge Judy emphasized that a landlord must provide clear evidence when using a tenant’s deposit for repairs or damages. “You need receipts and proof of what was done with the deposit.
You can’t just keep the money without showing where it went.” She ordered the landlord to return the full amount of the security deposit to Liya, stressing that the money should be returned unless there was clear, documented evidence of valid damages.
The case served as an important reminder for both landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities when it comes to security deposits.
Judge Judy reminded landlords that they must follow proper procedures and keep records of any damages or repairs, while tenants must understand their obligations under their leases. In the end, the ruling highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in handling security deposits and property disputes.
For Liya, the decision meant she would be receiving her security deposit back, and for the landlord, it was a lesson in ensuring that tenant funds are handled with proper documentation and respect.
The case also reinforced the notion that legal agreements, such as lease terms, should be clearly followed and understood by both parties to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
