CaseCited

Johnson v. Riverside Apartments

531 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App. 2017)

Good LawTexas Court of Appeals, 5th DistrictSeptember 18, 2017Cited 45 times

Summary

The court addressed what constitutes a valid itemized list of deductions from a security deposit. The court held that a landlord's deduction list must be specific enough to allow the tenant to meaningfully evaluate each claimed deduction. Vague entries like 'cleaning' or 'damages' without further detail are insufficient.

The court further held that normal wear and tear may not be deducted from a security deposit, and the landlord bears the burden of distinguishing between normal wear and tenant-caused damage.

Key Holdings

  • 1An itemized list of security deposit deductions must contain specific descriptions, not vague categories
  • 2Normal wear and tear may not be charged against a security deposit
  • 3The landlord bears the burden of proving deductions are for damage beyond normal wear and tear

Why This Case Matters

Provides detailed guidance on what constitutes a valid itemized accounting of security deposit deductions, helping tenants challenge vague or overbroad claims.

Facts

Tenant disputed landlord's deductions from $1,500 security deposit. Landlord's itemized list contained entries like 'carpet cleaning - $300' and 'general repairs - $450' without specifying what was repaired or why cleaning exceeded normal wear. Tenant argued deductions were for normal wear and tear.

Legal Principles

Itemized accounting requirementNormal wear and tear distinctionBurden of proof on landlord

Statutes Interpreted

  • Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104
  • Tex. Prop. Code § 92.103

Related Cases

Get Weekly Case Updates

New case summaries and legal research tips delivered to your inbox every week. Free for Texas attorneys.