Security deposits and repairs in Texas: what the statutes lay out

This guide describes the law of residential security deposits, the landlord's repair duty, and landlord retaliation as laid out in chapter 92 of the Texas Property Code, and how Texas courts have read its key sections. It explains what the statutes say; it is not legal advice. Every section and case discussed here links to the full text hosted in this library. It is the companion to the Eviction in Texas guide, which covers chapter 24.

Informational only — not legal advice. This page describes statutes and court opinions; it does not apply them to any situation. Verify every section against the official Texas statutes ↗; the cases below construed the versions of the text in force when they were decided.

The governing law at a glance

The deposit lifecycle, step by step

1. Surrender. The clock in § 92.103(a) starts when "the tenant surrenders the premises." A § 92.102 "security deposit" is "an advance of money … intended primarily to secure performance under a lease of a dwelling" — and under § 92.108, a tenant may not simply treat it as the last month's rent.

2. Forwarding address. Under § 92.107, the landlord "is not obligated" to refund or itemize "until the tenant gives the landlord a written statement of the tenant's forwarding address" — but subsection (b) adds that the tenant "does not forfeit" the refund right "merely for failing to give a forwarding address."

3. The 30-day window. § 92.103(a) requires the landlord to refund the deposit "on or before the 30th day after the date the tenant surrenders the premises." Subsection (c) gives the tenant's claim to the deposit priority over the landlord's creditors, "including a trustee in bankruptcy."

4. Deductions. § 92.104 permits deducting only "damages and charges for which the tenant is legally liable under the lease or as a result of breaching the lease" (subsection (a)), flatly bars retaining any portion "to cover normal wear and tear" (subsection (b)), and — if anything is retained — requires returning the balance "together with a written description and itemized list of all deductions" (subsection (c), with a narrow exception when rent is owed and no controversy exists).

5. The presumption and the penalty. § 92.109 supplies the enforcement: a landlord who "in bad faith" retains a deposit is liable for "$100, three times the portion of the deposit wrongfully withheld," and reasonable attorney's fees (subsection (a)); bad-faith failure to itemize forfeits the right to withhold anything or to sue for premises damage (subsection (b)); in the tenant's suit "the landlord has the burden of proving that the retention … was reasonable" (subsection (c)); and a landlord who misses the 30-day deadline for both refund and itemization "is presumed to have acted in bad faith" (subsection (d)).

The repair duty, closely read

**§ 92.052** obliges the landlord to "make a diligent effort to repair or remedy" a condition when three things are true: the tenant gave notice of the condition to where rent is normally paid; the tenant "is not delinquent in the payment of rent at the time notice is given"; and the condition either "materially affects the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant" or involves the hot-water minimum the subsection specifies. Subsection (b) then withdraws the duty for conditions "caused by" the tenant, the tenant's occupants, or guests — unless caused by normal wear and tear. The remedies sit in § 92.056 (liability after notice, opportunity, and a second notice), § 92.0561 (repair-and-deduct, with its own conditions and caps), and § 92.0563 (judicial remedies). § 92.006 polices the boundary between these duties and the lease: which duties can be waived, which cannot, and on what conditions — the provision at the center of White and of Churchill Forge, Inc. v. Brown, 61 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2001).

How the courts have read it

The opinions below are hosted in this library in full; each links to its authoritative source from its own page.

Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2006)

• Issue — Tenants who surrendered a rental house and left a forwarding address sued when the

deposit was not refunded; the landlord counterclaimed for repair costs exceeding the deposit. The appeal tested who must plead and prove what under the deposit subchapter.

• Holding — The court held the landlord was not required to plead absence of bad faith as an

affirmative defense; the § 92.109(d) presumption of bad faith arises on the tenant's proof of the statutory conditions and can be rebutted, and here sufficient evidence supported the findings that the landlord did not act in bad faith and that his damages exceeded the deposit. The take-nothing judgment against the tenants was affirmed.

• Turns on — § 92.102 (what a deposit is); § 92.103 (the 30-day

obligation); § 92.104 (deductions and itemization); § 92.109 (the presumption, its rebuttal, and the burden of reasonableness).

• Connects — States the full framework the flow diagram depicts, and shows the presumption

operating and being rebutted — the counterpoint to Hardy.

• Read it — Full opinion in this library.

Hardy v. 11702 Memorial, Ltd., 176 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2004)

• Issue — A landlord retained a $20,250 residential deposit through deductions the tenant

contended were not chargeable to her; the trial court found for the landlord.

• Holding — The court held there was "no more than a scintilla of evidence" that the landlord

was entitled to any of the deductions, that the implied finding of the landlord's good faith was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the tenant established the landlord's bad faith in retaining the entire deposit as a matter of law — exposing the landlord to § 92.109(a)'s $100-plus-treble-damages measure and fees.

• Turns on — § 92.104 (what may be deducted); § 92.109(a), (d)

(bad-faith liability and the presumption; the landlord's burden of proving good faith).

• Connects — The mirror image of Pulley: the same presumption, unrebutted, with the

statutory penalty attaching. Together they show § 92.109 doing exactly what its text describes.

• Read it — Full opinion in this library.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. White, 490 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2016)

• Issue — After an apartment fire, a lease reimbursement clause was invoked to charge the

tenant for damage "unless caused by the landlord's negligence"; the court of appeals had held the clause void as shifting repair costs beyond what the Property Code allows. The Supreme Court of Texas took up how § 92.052(b)'s carve-out for tenant-caused conditions and § 92.006's waiver limits bear on such a clause.

• Holding — The court held that "the causal standard in section 92.052(b) is not fault-based"

— a condition "caused by" the tenant is outside the statutory repair duty whether or not the tenant was negligent — and that the tenant bears the burden of proving facts in avoidance of the contract. Reaffirming Churchill Forge, it explained that a landlord "cannot contractually avoid a repair obligation except when statutorily authorized," but concluded the clause was not void on this record, reversing in part and remanding.

• Turns on — § 92.052 (the duty and its causation carve-out); § 92.006

(waiver limits); §§ 92.056, 92.0561 (remedies conditioned on a subchapter B duty).

• Connects — Draws the outer boundary of the repair duty that the deposit cases take for

granted: what the landlord must fix, what the lease may reallocate, and who must prove what.

• Read it — Full opinion in this library.

Evidence and elements

The map above pairs each statutory element with the kinds of records the courts in the linked cases discussed — the surrender date and forwarding-address note that started the clock in Pulley; the itemized statement (or its absence) and condition evidence measured against § 92.104 in Pulley and Hardy; the lease clauses and causation facts examined against § 92.052 and § 92.006 in White; and repair-request and complaint records of the kind at issue in Hernandez v. Gallardo, 458 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App. 2014), where tenants pleaded that an eviction violated § 92.331's bar on retaliation for exercising rights in good faith — retaliation § 92.335 also makes relevant inside an eviction suit. The map describes what those opinions examined; it is not a checklist for any particular situation.

Where to verify

• Official statute text: statutes.capitol.texas.gov ↗

(Property Code, Title 8, chapter 92).

• In this library: Property Code chapter 92 · the

Eviction in Texas guide for chapter 24 citing these sections.

• Every case page above carries its own hand-off link to the authoritative source of the opinion.