$1,863.76: The price of waiting four years for a refund

Dana Kornberg hangs a check for $1,863.76 on her refrigerator door. The check represents her security deposit from a Hamtramck apartment she vacated in 2021. It took her more than four years to receive the funds from her former landlord, Julie Zielinski. Despite a court judgment and a subpoena, Zielinski did not pay until a private collector visited her home earlier this year. Kornberg described the process as stressful, feeling like her money was being stolen in what she called a complete abuse of power. Zielinski did not respond to messages by voicemail or email.

Local legal aid workers say this scenario is common in the region. Tony Degard, interim director of Lakeshore Legal Aid’s Detroit Eviction Prevention team, stated that tenants complain about withheld deposits on a daily basis. He noted that landlords often bet tenants will not put in the effort to recover the money. Degard described the process as a tall hill to climb, requiring a highly motivated tenant to pursue the claim to the end. A 2024 national survey by Zillow found that fewer than half of tenants received their full deposit back, while about one-quarter received none.

Michigan law imposes specific procedural requirements on tenants who dispute deductions. Renters must complete a checklist and take photos upon moving in to document the apartment's condition. They must provide a forwarding address within four days and dispute any deductions within seven days. Kornberg was able to recover her deposit in full because she had access to a pro bono attorney and thoroughly documented her tenancy. Not every renter has those resources or the time to navigate the legal system.

Monica Mahecha decided against pursuing her deposit after her landlord, Titus Property Group, withheld $200. She rented an apartment near New Center for about a year and a half before moving out in late June. The landlord deducted the money for an excessive number of holes that required additional plastering and painting beyond normal wear and tear. Mahecha believed the deduction was unjust because she had caulked all the holes when she left, and her landlord had told her she could hang items on the wall. She said the amount was not enough to justify the time required for small claims court, and she was unaware that winning a judgment could entitle her to double the claim.

Michael Martin, a property manager for Titus Property Group, said by email that the deduction was reasonable. He stated the cost to repaint the affected walls was $650. Martin’s calculation suggests the landlord lost money on the transaction relative to the deduction taken from the tenant. Mahecha, however, felt the burden of proof and the time cost made the fight not worth it for a $200 difference.

Other tenants in Detroit and Hamtramck face different types of deductions that are not tied to physical damage. J Nelson and Jasmine Kaltenbach each rented apartments from Bell Asset Management. The company deducted $250 from their security deposits for an Inspection Fee. Neither tenant was told why the fee existed, and it was not disclosed in their lease agreements. Nelson questioned why she should pay for the company to inspect its own building. Degard said he would argue in court that an inspection fee is not a legal deduction from a security deposit.

Bell Asset Management kept a total of $460 from Nelson’s security deposit. The company alleged issues with drywall, bathroom caulking, and a shower diverter. Nelson said all these items resulted from the regular course of renting and were not caused by excessive damage. The company’s general email address received no response, and Andrew Colom, the company’s listed resident agent, declined to comment. Kaltenbach said she dropped her claim because it was not worth taking time off work to retrieve the money in court.

Nelson is preparing to file a small claims suit to recover her funds. She stated she has been fighting tooth and nail for what is legally hers. Her case illustrates the ongoing friction between tenants who want their money back and landlords who apply strict or unclear standards for deductions. The local legal aid office continues to see a steady stream of renters who feel the system favors those who can afford the time to litigate small amounts of money.