AITA for not giving my roommate back an equal refund on our security deposit?

AITA for not giving my roommate back an equal refund on our security deposit?

Recently, I (M) received the refund from the security deposit from the house I was renting with two others (F). We equally paid into a $2890.00 (EDIT: $2695) security deposit when signing the lease. However, when we moved out, the landlord charged us for $370 in itemized damages ($2520 EDIT: $2325 returned).

After I looked at the list of items I divided the refund based on charges each person was PERSONALLY responsible for and equally divided ones that we were ALL responsible for. I took $716.67 for myself, $769.17 for one of the girls, and $839.17 for the other. One of the (F) roommates was quite upset that we did not get back the full refund.

So, her mom emailed the landlord multiple times and threatened to take him to court if he did not give us back the full refund. Meanwhile, I also emailed the landlord because one of the charged items listed was $75 for a light covering which they claimed was missing (I had just taken the covering off and set it on the floor because the light bulb was burnt out and needed to be replaced with a non-standard bulb.)

Eventually, the landlord gave in and gave us an itemized refund of $195, itemized for the following. $75 refund for the light fixture, $35 refund for cleaning MY bathroom, $35 for cleaning the GIRLS SHARED bathroom, $50 for cleaning the SHARED basement. The refund for the light fixture and the refund for my bathroom I had taken out of my share of the original refund of $2520 EDIT: $2325.

Therefore, upon receiving this second itemized refund of $195, I thought it was fair that I receive $110 (light fixture + my bathroom) + $16.67 ($50/3 for the shared basement) and that the girls receive $17.50 ($35/2 for their bathroom) + $16.67 ($50/3 basement). So in total of the $195 refund I would receive $126.67 and the two girls would each receive $34.17 for their respective items in the refund.

After explaining this, the same roommate who was initially upset was again upset because she felt she was entitled to $65 (an even split of the $195 refund) because it was her mom who did all the work to get any money back in the first place (even though I emailed specifically about the light fixture).

She argued that they were trying to get the full deposit back so the line items don't matter. I tried to explain to her that she would be profiting if we evenly split the $195 because I did not distribute the original refund equally to begin with. I don't want to give her the money. AITA?

Here's what people had to say to OP:

dizcuz wrote:

NTA, the original distribution by you seemed fair from how I'd skimmed through it. "I took $716.67 for myself, $769.17 for one of the girls, and $839.17 for the other."

If the rest of it was given then it should've reverted to the original agreement of each paying a third and thus receiving back a third IF the full amount was returned. The one who had received the $839.17 wanted even more?

OP responded:

The one who received $769.17 was the one who wanted more back (meaning she also caused more of the damage to begin with).

OldeSod wrote:

Did you discuss the plan to deduct itemized damages from the refund with them? And were they comfortable with that plan? It sounds reasonable, but I would hope they get a say in it. If they're okay with the initial way you split things up, then applying that logic to the $195 refund makes sense. (NB: I'm just trusting your math!)

OP responded:

Yes, the itemized deductions from the original $2520 refund was discussed and agreed upon before the extra $195 refund was in question.

Wild_Explanation24 wrote:

NTA. But the whole situation looks insignificant to have all of these debates. It's hard to believe you all lived under the same house without making a fuss of every little thing. Life is easy, but we make it difficult for ourselves.

OP responded:

Towards the end, we were just coexisting in four confined walls. While it may have been a trivial amount of money, I argued solely based out of principle rather than the dollar amount because she has a history of being entitled IMO.

doktor_seagull wrote:

NTA. Everyone was reimbursed minus the itemised damages they were responsible for. That is an entirely fair solution. Who said what to who doesn't matter, her mother wasn't hired by any of you to represent you vs the landlord.

Also she certainly was NOT going to sue over $370, that would be a ridiculous waste of money for likely the same $195 refund. You have the itemised documents. Let her mom waste her money if she wants. Don't pay more than was owed.

ToldUtoUrface wrote:

NTA. Her mom worked for a portion of money on her daughters behalf. There is no direct link that says her efforts where any greater than your efforts. Hence they negate each other out since the daughter never pit in the work herself yet she still benefits as a whole because of BOTH of your efforts. Neighter a nor b helped a's mom helped.

Which is better than zero. Because as a landlord...your mom isn't the tenant I have no obligation to say, help or do for them on the tenants behalf unless legal paperwork says so.