Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104 (2026)

Retention Of Security Deposit; Accounting

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 92.104. RETENTION OF SECURITY DEPOSIT; ACCOUNTING. (a) Before returning a security deposit, the landlord may deduct from the deposit damages and charges for which the tenant is legally liable under the lease or as a result of breaching the lease.

(b) The landlord may not retain any portion of a security deposit to cover normal wear and tear.

(c) If the landlord retains all or part of a security deposit under this section, the landlord shall give to the tenant the balance of the security deposit, if any, together with a written description and itemized list of all deductions. The landlord is not required to give the tenant a description and itemized list of deductions if:

(1) the tenant owes rent when he surrenders possession of the premises; and

(2) there is no controversy concerning the amount of rent owed.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3640, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2006).
Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.104 (b). If the landlord retains all or part of the security deposit, the landlord shall give the tenant, within thirty days of the tenant’s surrender of the premises: (1) the balance of the security deposit, if any; (2) a written description of the…”
Hardy v. 11702 Mem'l, Ltd., 176 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 92.104(a) (Vernon 1995).”
Shamoun v. Shough, 377 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. App. 2012). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104(c). In Question 9 of the jury charge, the jury was instructed consistent with these statutory provisions, and Tenant made no objection to the question or the instruction.”
Rosalie Graf Schneider v. Charles Whatley & Virginia Whatley, 535 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104 (West 2014). When a tenant brings a cause of action to recover a wrongfully held security deposit, the landlord has the burden of proving that the retention of any portion of the security deposit was reasonable.”
Leskinen v. Burford, 892 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App. 1994). “Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104(b) (Vernon 1984).”
Reed v. Ford, 760 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App. 1988). “TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. § 92.104(e) (Vernon 1984).”
Younker v. Inv. Realty, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “Codified Laws § 43-32-24 , Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104, Utah Code Ann.”
Lost Creek Ventures, LLC D/B/A Happy Bulldog Mgmt. Stephan Epstein & Marilyn Roth Epstein v. Alan Pilgrim (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(a)–(c). Rather, they made an offer “in settlement of any deposit and rent issues in full,” and withheld a sum not based on any itemization of damage.”
Charles J. Melnik v. Dewayne Baldwin, Tonia Baldwin (Tex. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(a); see also Cotter v.”
Frazin, Lorrie v. Sauty, Marc & Benedicte (Tex. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(1)(c). C. Application of the Law to the Facts The Sautys moved for traditional summary judgment on their claim for failure to return the security deposit.”
Texan Pearl, LLC v. Victoria Koegel, Joseph W. Koegel, Sarah Evans, & Thomas Evans (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(a), (b); see also id.”
Lorrie Frazin v. Marc Sauty & Benedicte Sauty (Tex. App. 2016). “6 We note that subchapter C employs various terms that appear to be synonymous to describe the obligation of a landlord to notify the tenant of reasons for security deposit retention: “accounting” and “written description and itemized list of all deductions,” see TEX. PROP. CODE…”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(1)(c) — 1 case
Frazin, Lorrie v. Sauty, Marc & Benedicte (Tex. App. 2014). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(1)(c). C. Application of the Law to the Facts The Sautys moved for traditional summary judgment on their claim for failure to return the security deposit.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(a) — 6 cases
Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2006). “Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.104 (b). If the landlord retains all or part of the security deposit, the landlord shall give the tenant, within thirty days of the tenant’s surrender of the premises: (1) the balance of the security deposit, if any; (2) a written description of the…”
Hardy v. 11702 Mem'l, Ltd., 176 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2004). “” Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 92.104(a) (Vernon 1995).”
Lost Creek Ventures, LLC D/B/A Happy Bulldog Mgmt. Stephan Epstein & Marilyn Roth Epstein v. Alan Pilgrim (Tex. App. 2016). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(a)–(c). Rather, they made an offer “in settlement of any deposit and rent issues in full,” and withheld a sum not based on any itemization of damage.”
Charles J. Melnik v. Dewayne Baldwin, Tonia Baldwin (Tex. App. 2019). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(a); see also Cotter v.”
Texan Pearl, LLC v. Victoria Koegel, Joseph W. Koegel, Sarah Evans, & Thomas Evans (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(a), (b); see also id.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(b) — 3 cases
Leskinen v. Burford, 892 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App. 1994). “Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104(b) (Vernon 1984).”
Rosalie Graf Schneider v. Charles Whatley & Virginia Whatley, 535 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App. 2017). “Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104 (West 2014). When a tenant brings a cause of action to recover a wrongfully held security deposit, the landlord has the burden of proving that the retention of any portion of the security deposit was reasonable.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(c) — 4 cases
Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2006). “Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.104 (b). If the landlord retains all or part of the security deposit, the landlord shall give the tenant, within thirty days of the tenant’s surrender of the premises: (1) the balance of the security deposit, if any; (2) a written description of the…”
Shamoun v. Shough, 377 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. App. 2012). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 92.104(c). In Question 9 of the jury charge, the jury was instructed consistent with these statutory provisions, and Tenant made no objection to the question or the instruction.”
Texan Pearl, LLC v. Victoria Koegel, Joseph W. Koegel, Sarah Evans, & Thomas Evans (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(a), (b); see also id.”
Frazin, Lorrie v. Sauty, Marc & Benedicte (Tex. App. 2014). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 92.104(1)(c). C. Application of the Law to the Facts The Sautys moved for traditional summary judgment on their claim for failure to return the security deposit.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 92.104(e) — 1 case
Reed v. Ford, 760 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App. 1988). “TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. § 92.104(e) (Vernon 1984).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.