Get your deposit back, plus up to 3× in penalties.

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $2,400 paid in connection with my tenancy at 1428 Camino Verde, Apt 3B, Riverside, 00000. I moved out on June 25, 2026. As of the date of this letter, you have neither returned the deposit nor provided the written itemised statement required by C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

My forwarding address was provided to you in writing on June 25, 2026. Your statutory deadline to return the deposit or provide an itemised statement ran from that date.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, you had thirty (30) days from my move-out date to return the deposit or provide a written itemised statement of any deductions. That deadline has now passed.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

I demand the return of the full deposit of $2,400 within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, by check made payable to the undersigned and mailed to the address shown above.

Failure to comply will result in the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103. The action will seek the deposit itself, plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

---

Sincerely,

Jordan A. Reyes

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $2,000 paid in connection with my tenancy at 87 Larkspur Lane, Unit 12, Fairview, 00000. I moved out on July 10, 2026. You subsequently delivered an itemised statement of deductions (the precise date of the statement is not in my records). The burden is on you to justify each deduction with a written itemisation and documentation of damage beyond ordinary wear; I dispute these deductions in full and demand the entire amount back.

Each deduction below is your burden to justify. Unless you can substantiate an item with receipts, photographs, or other documentary evidence within the period set by C.R.S. § 38-12-103, the full amount must be returned to me.

Receipts alone do not establish a permissible deduction. Even where you produce a receipt for an expenditure, the existence of a receipt does not, on its own, establish the right to withhold the corresponding amount from my deposit. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a permissible deduction must (a) be attributable to damage caused by the tenant that exceeds ordinary wear and tear, and (b) be a written itemisation delivered within the statutory window. A receipt evidences only that you spent the money. It does not address tenant causation or the statutory itemisation requirements.

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, deductions from a security deposit must be itemised in writing and substantiated by receipts or comparable documentation. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

I therefore demand return of the full $1,850 you withheld within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.

If you maintain that any portion of the disputed amount is properly withheld, your response must include, for each contested line item: (i) the specific damage attributable to my tenancy beyond normal wear and tear, (ii) the date and method by which the itemisation was first delivered to me. Receipts alone do not satisfy these requirements.

Failure to return the full amount, or to provide the substantive response described above, within the thirty (30)-day window will be treated as confirmation of bad-faith retention and will prompt the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, seeking the full amount plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

Please direct all responses in writing to the address above.

---

Sincerely,

Priya Raman

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $3,050 paid in connection with my tenancy at 2015 Sherwood Avenue, Lakeside, 00000. I moved out on July 2, 2026. You subsequently delivered an itemised statement of deductions (the precise date of the statement is not in my records). The burden is on you to justify each deduction with a written itemisation and documentation of damage beyond ordinary wear; I dispute these deductions in full and demand the entire amount back.

Each deduction below is your burden to justify. Unless you can substantiate an item with receipts, photographs, or other documentary evidence within the period set by C.R.S. § 38-12-103, the full amount must be returned to me.

Receipts alone do not establish a permissible deduction. Even where you produce a receipt for an expenditure, the existence of a receipt does not, on its own, establish the right to withhold the corresponding amount from my deposit. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a permissible deduction must (a) be attributable to damage caused by the tenant that exceeds ordinary wear and tear, and (b) be a written itemisation delivered within the statutory window. A receipt evidences only that you spent the money. It does not address tenant causation or the statutory itemisation requirements.

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, deductions from a security deposit must be itemised in writing and substantiated by receipts or comparable documentation. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

I therefore demand return of the full $2,150 you withheld within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.

If you maintain that any portion of the disputed amount is properly withheld, your response must include, for each contested line item: (i) the specific damage attributable to my tenancy beyond normal wear and tear, (ii) the date and method by which the itemisation was first delivered to me. Receipts alone do not satisfy these requirements.

Failure to return the full amount, or to provide the substantive response described above, within the thirty (30)-day window will be treated as confirmation of bad-faith retention and will prompt the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, seeking the full amount plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

Please direct all responses in writing to the address above.

---

Sincerely,

Devon Okafor

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $1,800 paid in connection with my tenancy at 640 Juniper Court, Apt 9, Ashfield, 00000. I moved out on July 16, 2026. You subsequently delivered an itemised statement of deductions (the precise date of the statement is not in my records). The burden is on you to justify each deduction with a written itemisation and documentation of damage beyond ordinary wear; I dispute these deductions in full and demand the entire amount back.

Each deduction below is your burden to justify. Unless you can substantiate an item with receipts, photographs, or other documentary evidence within the period set by C.R.S. § 38-12-103, the full amount must be returned to me.

Receipts alone do not establish a permissible deduction. Even where you produce a receipt for an expenditure, the existence of a receipt does not, on its own, establish the right to withhold the corresponding amount from my deposit. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a permissible deduction must (a) be attributable to damage caused by the tenant that exceeds ordinary wear and tear, and (b) be a written itemisation delivered within the statutory window. A receipt evidences only that you spent the money. It does not address tenant causation or the statutory itemisation requirements.

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, deductions from a security deposit must be itemised in writing and substantiated by receipts or comparable documentation. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

I therefore demand return of the full $1,200 you withheld within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.

If you maintain that any portion of the disputed amount is properly withheld, your response must include, for each contested line item: (i) the specific damage attributable to my tenancy beyond normal wear and tear, (ii) the date and method by which the itemisation was first delivered to me. Receipts alone do not satisfy these requirements.

Failure to return the full amount, or to provide the substantive response described above, within the thirty (30)-day window will be treated as confirmation of bad-faith retention and will prompt the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, seeking the full amount plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

Please direct all responses in writing to the address above.

---

Sincerely,

Hannah Bergström

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $2,750 paid in connection with my tenancy at 318 Third Street, Apt 5C, Northgate, 00000. I moved out on July 22, 2026. As of the date of this letter, you have neither returned the deposit nor provided the written itemised statement required by C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

My forwarding address was provided to you in writing on July 22, 2026. Your statutory deadline to return the deposit or provide an itemised statement ran from that date.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, you had thirty (30) days from my move-out date to return the deposit or provide a written itemised statement of any deductions. That deadline has now passed.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

I demand the return of the full deposit of $2,750 within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, by check made payable to the undersigned and mailed to the address shown above.

Failure to comply will result in the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103. The action will seek the deposit itself, plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

---

Sincerely,

Marcus Vail

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $950 paid in connection with my tenancy at 92 Willow Bend, Rosedale, 00000. I moved out on July 28, 2026. You subsequently delivered an itemised statement of deductions (the precise date of the statement is not in my records). The burden is on you to justify each deduction with a written itemisation and documentation of damage beyond ordinary wear; I dispute these deductions in full and demand the entire amount back.

Each deduction below is your burden to justify. Unless you can substantiate an item with receipts, photographs, or other documentary evidence within the period set by C.R.S. § 38-12-103, the full amount must be returned to me.

Receipts alone do not establish a permissible deduction. Even where you produce a receipt for an expenditure, the existence of a receipt does not, on its own, establish the right to withhold the corresponding amount from my deposit. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a permissible deduction must (a) be attributable to damage caused by the tenant that exceeds ordinary wear and tear, and (b) be a written itemisation delivered within the statutory window. A receipt evidences only that you spent the money. It does not address tenant causation or the statutory itemisation requirements.

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, deductions from a security deposit must be itemised in writing and substantiated by receipts or comparable documentation. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

I therefore demand return of the full $950 you withheld within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.

If you maintain that any portion of the disputed amount is properly withheld, your response must include, for each contested line item: (i) the specific damage attributable to my tenancy beyond normal wear and tear, (ii) the date and method by which the itemisation was first delivered to me. Receipts alone do not satisfy these requirements.

Failure to return the full amount, or to provide the substantive response described above, within the thirty (30)-day window will be treated as confirmation of bad-faith retention and will prompt the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, seeking the full amount plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

Please direct all responses in writing to the address above.

---

Sincerely,

Alina Petrova

Dear ,

This letter is addressed to both of you. Each of you is independently liable for the return of the security deposit of $2,000 paid in connection with the tenancy described above.

The property changed ownership during my tenancy. Under state law, the original landlord must either transfer the deposit to the successor or return it directly to the tenant, with written notice. Failure to do so leaves both parties jointly liable for the return of the deposit.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a landlord transferring ownership of leased property must either:

1. Transfer the security deposit, in full and with an accounting, to the successor in interest and notify the tenant in writing of the transfer; OR

2. Return the deposit directly to the tenant, less any properly itemised deductions, with written notice.

Failure to comply with either obligation does not extinguish the deposit; it simply leaves both transferor and transferee jointly liable to the tenant.

I moved out on July 31, 2026. To date, neither of you has returned the deposit nor provided a properly itemised statement.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

I demand the return of the full deposit of $2,000 within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. This demand is made of both addressees jointly. The undersigned is not required to determine which of you currently holds the funds; the court will allocate ultimate responsibility between you.

Failure to comply will result in the filing of a small-claims action naming both of you as co-defendants.

---

Sincerely,

Terrence Blake

Dear ,

I am writing regarding the security deposit of $1,600 paid in connection with my tenancy at 76 Beacon Hill Road, Glenmoor, 00000. I moved out on August 6, 2026. You subsequently delivered an itemised statement of deductions (the precise date of the statement is not in my records). The burden is on you to justify each deduction with a written itemisation and documentation of damage beyond ordinary wear; I dispute these deductions in full and demand the entire amount back.

Each deduction below is your burden to justify. Unless you can substantiate an item with receipts, photographs, or other documentary evidence within the period set by C.R.S. § 38-12-103, the full amount must be returned to me.

Receipts alone do not establish a permissible deduction. Even where you produce a receipt for an expenditure, the existence of a receipt does not, on its own, establish the right to withhold the corresponding amount from my deposit. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, a permissible deduction must (a) be attributable to damage caused by the tenant that exceeds ordinary wear and tear, and (b) be a written itemisation delivered within the statutory window. A receipt evidences only that you spent the money. It does not address tenant causation or the statutory itemisation requirements.

Colorado treats willful or intentional retention as the bad-faith trigger. Continued retention after this demand letter, particularly where any portion is clearly substantiated as wrongfully withheld, supports a finding of willfulness.

Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, deductions from a security deposit must be itemised in writing and substantiated by receipts or comparable documentation. Under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, Colorado permits treble damages (up to 3× the wrongfully withheld amount) for non-compliance with the statutory return/itemisation requirements.

• Attorney fees recoverable to the prevailing party under C.R.S. § 38-12-103

I therefore demand return of the full $1,600 you withheld within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.

If you maintain that any portion of the disputed amount is properly withheld, your response must include, for each contested line item: (i) the specific damage attributable to my tenancy beyond normal wear and tear, (ii) the date and method by which the itemisation was first delivered to me. Receipts alone do not satisfy these requirements.

Failure to return the full amount, or to provide the substantive response described above, within the thirty (30)-day window will be treated as confirmation of bad-faith retention and will prompt the filing of a small-claims action in Colorado under C.R.S. § 38-12-103, seeking the full amount plus any damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees recoverable under C.R.S. § 38-12-103.

Please direct all responses in writing to the address above.

---

Sincerely,

Sofia Marchetti