§ 70-25-201

6
pointed         out        to     the    tenants         what         needed to               be cleaned,                 and then
delivered           a written            notice        of cleaning              to be done to the tenants'
mailbox.              The landlord                surmises            that      the           tenants         left         without
checking         their           mailbox.         The tenants                deny that              the inspection                  and
the delivery               of the notice               ever      occurred.
          The District                  Court         found      that        the        tenants            never          received
written          notice            as   required          by      statute.                    See § 70-25-201,                      MCA
(1991).          The tenants              testified            to the facts                   found        by the District
Court.           In Williams              v.     DeVinney             (1993),        259 Mont.               354,         359,      856
P.2d      546,      549,          we stated           "[dlue      regard           is     to be given                 the       trial
court's         ability            to judge       the credibility                   of the witnesses,                        and it
is not this            Court's          function         to substitute                  its     judgment            for     that        of
the     trier         of        fact.       DeSave,           820 P.2d          at        1287-88."                 The record
provides           substantial                 evidence         to      support               the     District             Court's
finding.           We further             determine            that     the court              did not misapprehend
this      evidence              and we have no firm                     conviction                  that     a mistake              has
been made.             We therefore              conclude         the District                  Court       did not err                 in
awarding         to the tenants                  the $70.50 withheld                          for     cleaning.
          Additionally,                 the District             Court        agreed with                  the tenants              and
found       that       the         smoke detector               was not            present            when the             tenants
moved into            the apartment.                   The landlord                introduced               a condition                 of
premises           statement             signed         by      the      tenants              which         lists         a smoke
detector         as present             and working             when the tenants                      signed         the lease.
However,           the      landlord            did     not      record         the           testing         of     the         smoke
detector           as was his            practice            and the District                       Court      did        not      find