FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Tenant Seeks Security Deposit Return
Ms. Burnett appeared in court as the plaintiff.
She was a tenant of Ms. Mitchell, the defendant.
Their tenancy lasted two years and three months.
Ms. Burnett lived in a three-bedroom townhouse.
She resided there with her four children.
The monthly rent was $1750.
Ms. Burnett paid her rent on time.
The tenancy was otherwise unremarkable.
Ms. Burnett moved out on June 30th.
She had paid June's rent.
She was in court seeking the return of her $850 security deposit.
Landlord's Counterclaim for Damages
Ms. Mitchell, the landlord, had a counterclaim.
She sought $5,000 for alleged damages to the premises.
These damages included issues with the carpet, holes in walls, and a broken blind.
Disputed Walk-Through and Key Return
Ms. Burnett stated she did not do a walk-through with Ms. Mitchell.
She claimed Ms. Mitchell did not allow it.
Ms. Burnett explained that Ms. Mitchell broke the lock.
This allegedly happened on July 1st.
Ms. Burnett intended to return the key and have a walk-through that day.
Her husband was present to help with the move.
Ms. Mitchell was already at the house.
Ms. Burnett clarified that Ms. Mitchell came to the townhouse on June 30th.
This was at 5 o'clock, while Ms. Burnett was moving out.
Ms. Burnett said Ms. Mitchell looked around.
Then Ms. Mitchell stated she had to meet someone.
The Carpet Condition Dispute
Ms. Burnett mentioned they were going to clean the rug on July 1st.
Judge Judy asked if she left the rug dirty.
Ms. Burnett responded that Ms. Mitchell gave her a dirty rug when she moved in.
She described the carpet as wall-to-wall throughout the whole house.
Ms. Burnett claimed the carpet was dirty when she moved in.
She stated Ms. Mitchell said she would get it cleaned but never did.
Ms. Mitchell, however, claimed she cleaned the carpet herself before Ms. Burnett moved in.
This created a direct contradiction regarding the carpet's initial condition.
Landlord's After Pictures
Ms. Mitchell presented photographs as evidence.
These were "after pictures" of the premises.
They showed the condition after Ms. Burnett moved out.
The pictures included images of the carpet after it had been cleaned.
They also showed a broken blind and holes in walls.
Judge Judy noted a significant issue with these pictures.
Ms. Mitchell did not have any "before pictures."
She attributed this to a "crash disc."
Judge Judy Questions Carpet Evidence
Judge Judy expressed disinterest in the carpet pictures.
She pointed out that the pictures showed the carpet after it had been cleaned.
Therefore, they did not show what it looked like before.
Judge Judy stated she did not know the carpet's prior condition.
She also noted Ms. Mitchell had no proof of when the carpeting was installed.
Ms. Mitchell had previously stated she cleaned the carpet herself before Ms. Burnett moved in.
This indicated the carpet was old when Ms. Burnett moved in.
Judge Judy concluded she would not consider the carpet pictures.
She stated she was not looking at any carpet.
Painting and Normal Wear and Tear
Ms. Mitchell mentioned other damaged items beyond the carpet.
Judge Judy reminded Ms. Mitchell that as a landlord, she would need to repaint the house anyway.
This is standard procedure before re-renting.
Ms. Burnett was not responsible for general repainting.
Ms. Mitchell argued that Ms. Burnett changed the painting in one room and a closet.
Judge Judy dismissed this point.
She reiterated that the entire house would need repainting regardless.
Judge Judy acknowledged that painting is common after two and a half years of tenancy.