Illustrative Example
This story is based on typical security deposit disputes in Detroit. It illustrates common scenarios and outcomes under MCL 554.602. It is not a real client case.
Modeled Outcome
The recovery shown here is an illustrative modeled scenario. In Michigan, the actual remedy can depend on facts like notice, intent, coverage rules, or local law.
The Situation
This is an illustrative example based on typical security deposit disputes in Detroit. A renter moved out of a Detroit apartment after two years and received an itemized deduction of $450 for repainting all walls. The walls had last been painted seven years before move-in, making the paint fully depreciated under standard useful-life tables. The tenant disputed the charge using a depreciation calculation and the protections in Michigan's Security Deposit Act.
What Happened
Document the condition and research depreciation
The tenant photographed every wall at move-out, noting normal scuff marks consistent with two years of occupancy. They researched Michigan's useful-life standard for interior paint (generally 3-5 years) and calculated that paint applied seven years before their tenancy had zero remaining useful life, making any repainting charge unenforceable under MCL 554.602.
Receive landlord's itemization
The landlord sent an itemization within Michigan's 30-day window citing '$450 repainting - excessive marks.' No invoice or contractor quote was attached. Under MCL 554.603, landlords must provide an itemized list with amounts; receipts or estimates strengthen the claim but the lack of supporting documentation was noted.
Send written dispute with depreciation math
The tenant sent a certified letter disputing the $450 paint charge. The letter included a depreciation table showing seven-year-old paint carried zero replacement value attributable to the tenant, cited MCL 554.602's prohibition on charging tenants for normal wear and tear, and demanded return of the full $950 deposit within 7 days.
Landlord counters with partial concession
The landlord responded acknowledging the depreciation argument but insisting on a $173 charge for touch-up painting in one room where the tenant had hung shelving and left visible anchor holes beyond normal use. The tenant reviewed move-in photos confirming those holes were not pre-existing and accepted the reduced charge as reasonable.
Settlement reached and funds received
The landlord issued a check for $777 (deposit minus the agreed $173 legitimate charge). Combined with the $500 already returned from the original partial refund, the tenant recovered a total of $1,277 of the $1,450 in claimed charges, exceeding the original deposit balance through negotiated recapture of improperly withheld amounts.
The Outcome
By applying depreciation math and citing MCL 554.602 precisely, the tenant reduced a $450 paint charge to $173 - the only portion representing actual damage beyond normal wear. The final recovery of $1,277 reflected thorough documentation and a clear understanding that landlords cannot charge tenants for the natural aging of surfaces. The resolution took five weeks and required no court filing.
Key Lesson
Paint applied more than five years before move-out is fully depreciated; any repainting charge must be reduced proportionally to the remaining useful life, and Michigan landlords bear the burden of proving damage exceeds normal wear.
Apply This to Your Situation
If you are dealing with a similar situation in Detroit, find out what your landlord may owe you. Free analysis, 2 minutes.
Check My Michigan Deposit