STATE OF MICHIGAN 45 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION GAOHUA ZHU, 3 Plaintiff, 3 Case No. 16-1905 SC Mag. Tamara A. Garwood JIJIAO GU, ee Defendant. i OPINION A cmnall claims heating was held in this mattet on Noveinbet 30, 2016. At that time, Plaintiff, Gaohwa Ziv, and Defendant, Jijiao Gu, signed waivers and were sworn to tell the truth. Having carefully considered the testimony of and the documentation provided by both patties, the Court finds as follows: FINDINGS OF Facts Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written lease for Ms. Zhu to oceupy the premises at 109 Fieldcrest Street, #301, Ann Atbor, Michigan 48103. ‘The current lease granted Plaintiff occupancy beginning on August 1, 2015 and ending on July 31,2016. The patties both signed the lease on May 6, 2015. Itis believed that this was the second lease between the patties, as Plaintiff avers that he has resided at the Ficldcrest Street residence for two years. Plaintilf paid a secusity deposit of $1,680.00 to Defendant. On what is marked as jerein he identified all items August 1, 2014, Landlord Gu signed an Inventory Checklist, as “good”, with the exception of draperies/blinds, which were marked as “n/a” and windows were matked as “new”. On what is marked as August 8, 2014, Tenant Zhu signed. an Inventory Checklist, wherein he identified all items as “average” with the exception of the draperies blinds that he marked “n/a” and wrote “There is no draperies/curtains or blinds in the condo.” On the final day of occupancy, Landlord Gu appeared and Tenant Zhw needed additional time to remove his belongings. Landlord Gu came for the final inspection at 5:00Pm. Tenant did his final inspection at 10:00 pm on July 31, 2016". ‘The next tenant took possession of the property on August 2, 2016, according to the testimony of Landlord. ‘On or about August 16, 2016, Defendant submitted cazzespondence to Plaintiff, ‘Therein he included a ‘Texiination Inventory Checklist with four itemized issues, ‘Those items included: + Appliance: Damage to reftigerator aad freezer doors, 28 360 well as the wall, from hieting each surface. Microwave damage $60 * Doors: Laundry door jammed, track ciacked, baleony door stop brok $60 document, but further detailed oa the Inventory checklist) bath tub dmin missing pin, kitchea sink faucet handle r missing eap, loosen & warble. $60 © Ceiling/Pillow light in kitchen: damaged. $185 TOTAL $425 In his correspondence, Landlord Gu writes that the parties agreed at walk through to repairs on the plumbiag and doors. He further included a check for $1,255.00 as refund of the security deposit after withholding $425 for the items identified in the closure letter. On August 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Affidavit and Claim disputing the withholdings from his security deposit. Plaintiff denies that he agreed to the damage or to be responsible for any withholdings from his security deposit. ANALYSIS A plaintiff bears the burden o: f proof a small dlaims case by 4 preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of evidence means “such evidence, as, when weighed with that opposed to it, has mote convincing force and the greater probability of tcuth.” People x. Cross, 281 Mich App 737, 740 (2008) quotations marks omitted). ‘The Lease in this matter provides under the Repairs section in paragraph 7. This, paragraph states, “Tenant agrees to keep the ptemises, including the equipment and fixtures of every kind and nature, in good repair during the tetm of this Leace, at the expiration thereof to yield anc deliver up the same, in like condition as when tuken, zeasonable wear " The lease provides that the occupancy enc on July 31, 2016. Plaintiff's elsim alleges that the matter arose on July 30,2016. The Court will proceed with Judgment despite the discrepancy. nothereofand damage by the elements expected.” [Emphesis added by the Court.) ‘The paragraph further states, “Tenant shall only be responsible for the fst $60.00 for each repair and/or service call” The Secucity Deposit provisions of the Lesse stat in relevant past, “Landlozd may use this deposit for: 1) actnal damages thet are the result of conduct not reasonably expected in the normal court of living in the dwelling; 2) past due rent and rent due for premature tcumination of this lease; and 3) utility bills that are the responsibility of Tenant and aot paid by Tenant” Michigan Compiled Laws 554.607 desesibes for what purposes a sect deposit may be used: (a) Reimburse the landlord for actual damages to the rental unit or any ancillary facility that are the direct result of conduct not reasonably expected in the normal course of habitation of a dwelling, () Pay the landlord for all rent in arrearage under the rental agreement, rent due for ptemature termination of the rental agreement by the tenant and for utility bills aot paid by the tenant. A secusity deposit may not be used for cleaning The Michigan Court of Appeals has stated: On a broad view, the object and measure of compensatory damages for breach is to ‘put the injured party in as good 4 position as be ‘would have had if performance had beea rendezed as promised,” 5 Corbin on Contracts, s 992, p 5. and in Brodsky v. Alea Hayosh Industries, Inc. (1963), 1 Mich.App. 591, 597, 598, 137 N.W.2d 771, 774, we eaid: 2 law aims to. “Where 2 breach of contract occ: make compensation adequate to the teal injury sustained, and to place the injured patty, so far as money can do it, in the same position he would have occupied if the contract had been fulfilled.” Hammond v. Haanin (1870), 21 Mich. 374, 384," In assessing damages for breach of contesct the breaching party is obliged to make good on the promise, He cannot be accountable for items of subsequent repair, alteration or correction where the benefit to the nonbreaching party would exceed the benefit contemplated by the contract.’ 2 Solon v Dahinaen Aparments, Ltd, 127 Mich App 108 (1983), ? Diaishocv Vuitan Indestes, 10 Micl.App. 61, 71-72 (1968)‘The applicable section Gection 9) of the Landlord ~ Tenant Act (MCI. 554.609) provides that a Landlord must notify Tenants of an itemized list of claimed damages for which the security deposit may be used, along with a check or moncy order for the difference between the claimed damages aad the amount of the security deposit held by the Jaadlord. On or about August 16, 2016, Landlord Gu did send notice to Tenant Zhu. The letter included 2 detailed accounting of charges and claimed damages against the security deposit and a check for the remaining deposit of $1,255, Ultimately, the question becomes whether the damages alleged ate reasonably expected in the notmal course of habitation of a dwelling. [f such damages are reasonably expected, then the deductions from the security deposit are improper. In reference to the alleged appliance damage to refrigerator and freezer doors, as well as the wall, from hitting each surface, the Court finds that this is seasonably expected damage in the normal course of habitation, From the photographs submitted by both. parties, itis clear that the alignment of the appliance and the wall will zesult in damage if the appliance is consistently opened fully, as one would expect with such an appliance. Additionzlly, Plaintiff submitted photographic evidence demonstrating that such damage already existed at the time of his move in August of 2014. As such this claim is denied and $60 must be retuned to Defendant. In reference to the alleged mictowave damage, under the photographs submited by Landlord, there are notations of “Vent grille edge broken” and “Doox assembly broken”, swith a note that parts and labo will cost $445. The photographs do not chow a broken door assembly, but rather a small vertical crack in the bottom trim of the door and a small vertical crack in the vent. Plaintiff alleges that the damage to the microwave was already present when he moved in, ‘The Court finds that these two issues do not appear to have any impact on the functionality of the appliance. Additionally, the cost of replacement for new microwsve is less than $200.00. It does appear that Defendant chose to only withhold $60 in reference to this claim, after Plaintiff objected to the $445 claim. ‘The Court would note that when Plaintiff signed his Inventory Checklist, there was no specific mention of the microwave. Additionally, Tenant identified the condition of the appliances as average, rather than good. ‘The Court finds that the alleged damage is reasonably expected damage in thenormal course of habitation and/or that the damage existed prior to Plaintiff moving into the residence. As such this claim is denied and $60 must be returned to Defendant. The third item of alleged damage deals with the laundzy door being jammed, a trace cracked, and the balcony door stop brokea, The Plaintiff alleges that there is no damage to the door or the wack. The Court finds that this damage exceeds that of reasonably expected damage in the normel course of habitation and the deductioa from the security deposit of $60 is proper Landlord withheld an additional $60 to address 2 plumbing issues, however the Inventory checklist provides, “bath tub drain missing pin, not hold drain cap. Kitchen sink faucet handler missing cap, loosen é warble. The Court finds that 2 loose handle of a faucet is reasonably expected damage in the normal course of habitation, however the remaining issuce exceed that stndard and the $60 withholding is proper. ‘The final claim of damage relates to the Ceiling/ Pillow light in kitchen. From Photographs of both pacties, it appears that thers is oil sesidue om the trim of the light fixture and on the ceiling, Defendant withheld §185 from the deposit for 3 types paint and labor, for the ceiling and light fixture trim to be cleaned and repainted. After the withholding fom the secuzity deposit, Defendant received an estimate to repair the ceiling and light tim fom Cabrio Properties. ‘The estimate is $420.00. The Court does find this damage exceeds that requiting simply cleaning and further that this damage exceeds that of reasonably expected Gamage in the normal course of habitation and a deduction for repair is proper. ‘The Court Goes believe the estimate to be excessive, but the original withholding to be proper to remove the oil, teat the stain, prime and paint. As such, the Court finds the $185 Withholding to be proper. Plaintiff also requested interest on the return of the secusity deposit funds. The lease does sot provide that interest on the security deposit will be provided to Tenant. As such, this request is without merit and is denied.Conexusion As some of the deductions from PlaintifPs security deposit were not proper, Plaintiff is entided to the refund of said withholdings, as detailed hetein, pe Plaintiff is awarded the $120.00, plus costs. / a fo ' UL Davee (20h Ve AAS Magisti{te ‘Tamara A. Gatwdod lag. T. Garwood, PEO48E18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 801 E.HURON STREET, P.O. BOX 8450 ANN ARBOR, MI 48107-B680 = /CRIMINAL 794-6750, CIVIL 794-6752 16-1905 POL TRAF { otvtives 16219 O41 crvaL. nN f CASH TRANSCTN JB A D49n407 i 2HU/BADHUAS AMT PATD 4 COPY FEES 1.50 1.80 2 Toracs: 1.50 1.50 £ cHECK 1105 TENDERED 1.50 3 TOTAL ParD: 1250 g A OL/L1/a1 D498407 1.50 g