Burden of proof on the landlord to prove proper withholding of security deposit

The landlord in this case withheld the security deposit of the tenant and the tenant sued the landlord for double damages and attorney fees. The Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County held that since the landlord was the party that was asserting the right to keep the security deposit, it was his burden of proof to show that the deposit was properly withheld.

This is important because a judge can find three things in a case regarding the wrongful withholding of a security deposit. First, he can hold that the landlord proved his case (in which case the tenant loses). Second, he can hold that the tenant proved his case (in which case the landlord loses). Third and finally, the judge can find that he does not know whom to believe. In such a case, the evidence is said to be in equipoise. When the judge doesn't know whom to believe (and this happens more than you would think), then the judge looks to the party who has the burden of proof, because that party loses. Under Paxton (the relevant quote is near the end of the case), it will be the landlord's burden of proof, so out of the three possible outcomes, the tenant wins two of them.

Paxton v. McGranahan (1985), Cuyahoga App. No.49645, Eighth Appellate District of Ohio, (unreported) LEXIS 9094.

If you found this information helpful and are looking for more information or would like to support this website, please consider ordering a copy of our book on Ohio landlord tenant law.

Disclaimer: The information provided on ohiolandlordtenant.com is not intended to be legal advice, but general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. The law in your state may be different from that discussed here. The facts in your case may be different too.

Having trouble finding what you are looking for, then search our site below:

	www.ohiolandlordtenant.com