Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in Washington

You pose an interesting question. If the landlords can establish that the walls needed paint as he described to you, then how they spend the money he keeps is up to them, since reimbursement for the damage is where your involvement normally ends. That said, if the damage was as the landlords say, and they did not repair but rented it out as-is, the question that comes to my mind is whether the landlords are in violation of the landlord-tenant act in relation to the new tenants?

One note of caution: Just because the current tenants say the walls weren't painted and the carpets weren't cleaned, does not mean the landlords did not pay to have it done and the new tenants did not notice.

Ultimately, you are chasing after $300, which means this is all academic to lawyers, since you'll be in small claims court (without lawyers as they are not allowed there). If you work, you have to consider the time off work to attend court, and your time and energy pursuing this before deciding whether to sue.

If I were you, I would write the landlords and explain that you are aware they did not use the funds to repair the facilities, and as such demand a refund of the $300, otherwise, you plan to sue them in small claims court. This may, and I stress, MAY get you something back to settle and end the matter, but don't expect it to.

As a rule of thumb, I tell all my tenant clients to assume they'll never see any of their security deposits back, and as a rule of thumb, I tell all my landlord clients to assume the security deposits will never cover all the damage that is not ordinary wear and tear. For both sides, it is just the cost of doing business, and this is also why for both parties, having long lasting relationships is better since it saves tenants having to come up with deposits they'll never see again, and landlords from having to fix up repairs that are not fully covered by the deposits.

Good luck to you though!