have returned the security to the prior tenants if there had been problems. However, the
lease between the landlords and the prior tenants expired January 23, 2010, a full year
before the plaintiff-tenants moved in. Landlords had no explanation for that date
discrepancy. The checks in Exhibit D do add up to the amount of the prior tenants'
security, and are dated in early 2012, but again, landlords had no explanation for the
discrepancy in the dates of the prior lease.
Landlords placed into evidence receipts from various hardware supply stores
to show that they had to expend funds to repair the premises after the tenants vacated the
premises. However, two of these receipts are dated before tenants vacated the
premises and therefore could not have been as a result of damage allegedly detected at
the walk-through of February 14, 2013. (Defendants' exhibits 3 and 4, in evidence.)
Again, landlords were unable to satisfactorily explain this discrepancy.
During cross-examination, landlords admitted that they had no "before"
photos of the premises showing its true condition before tenants moved in. They
admitted that they had no proof that the cigarette burns shown in the photos (Defendants'
exhibit C, in evidence) were made by tenants rather than by the workmen who were there
the day after tenants moved out. In fact, landlords offered no substantive proof of the
condition of the premises as they were before the tenants moved in.
Tenants offer the theory that, because the landlords have put the premises up
for sale on the real estate market (Plaintiffs' exhibit 1, in evidence) that landlords seek to
pay for "sprucing up"[FN2] the [*3]premises with the tenants' funds to enhance the possibility