§ 70-25-201

5
properly         provided            the tenants             with     a list        of damages and a partial
refund       as required              under      § 70-25-202,                 MCA.
          The tenants            argue that             damage to property,                     by nature,         is very
similar         to     cleaning            charges         and therefore                the      tenants     should          be
allowed         an opportunity                 to repair            damages before               money is withheld
from their            security          deposit.             The tenants            claim,       in any event,            the
landlord         did not meet his burden of proving                                     damages as required                  by
5 70-25-204(l),                MCA.
          The tenants'               argument         is      incongruous.               The District              Court's
finding         of     fact          stated      "[tlenants             have          admitted        liability           for
causing         damage to the property                         in the form of nail                   holes        . . . .'I
However,         the District                 Court's         determination              that      the     landlord          is
still       liable        because             prior        notice        of       damages was required                       is
incorrect.              There         is    no requirement                  in    the    Residential              Security
Deposits         Act     that         notice       be given           for        repairs.          The only          action
that      the    landlord             needed to take                 under        § 70-25-202,             MCA, was to
provide         the     tenant         with      a list         of damages within                   30 days of            the
termination             of      tenancy          or        30 days            after         a    surrender         of     the
premises.             The landlord              did     this        in regard           to the $8 nail               holes,
and therefore,                that     amount was properly                       withheld        from the security
deposit.             We hold           that     the      District           Court        erred      in     finding        the
landlord         incorrectly               withheld          funds      for       the nail        holes.
          The landlord,                however,         is     required           to give         a 48-hour          notice
for     cleaning        under         § 70-25-201,             MCA (1991).               The landlord             contends
that      he and his             wife         inspected         the     apartment               on March 30,            1991,