Q: My daughter is a college student in Duluth. I was a co-signer on a lease for the apartment she rented last year. She lived with four roommates, and vacated the apartment when the lease ended in August 2016. When she and her roommates turned in the keys, they did a checkout and walk-through with an agent from the building management. They were told everything looked good, and signed off on some sort of checklist or form, but they weren't given a copy of it.

We were aware that they would be charged a $125 cleaning fee, which was to be withheld from their security deposit. But when we received the returned deposit check, we discovered that they had deducted an additional $100 from each tenant for "replacing fire door." When we called to inquire about this expense, we were told that during the "thorough inspection," which took place during the cleaning after the girls moved out, the inspector found some scratches on the outside of the apartment door that faces the hall. They are charging the girls $400 to replace the door.

My daughter went back to the apartment and looked at the door. She saw that there were a few scratches on it, but that it has not been replaced. She then went to talk to management and asked how they can justify charging $400 for replacing a door that has not been replaced, especially when there is no proof that she or any of her roommates caused the scratches. The damage could have been done by anyone walking down the hall and dragging a key across it, by the new people moving in, or a multitude of other reasons.

The management claims that the door has not been replaced because the doors are on special order and are back-ordered for 12 weeks. I think they are trying to scam college kids. What recourse do I have?

A: Under Minnesota law, the landlord can withhold from the deposit only the amount reasonably necessary to cover any rent owed or other money owed based on an agreement, or to restore the apartment to its condition at the time your daughter and her roommates began renting it, excluding ordinary wear and tear.

You should write the building manager a letter stating that scratches on the fire door are considered normal wear and tear, and that that expense should not be charged against your daughter and her roommates' security deposit. Your daughter and her roommates didn't break the door, so they should not be charged for the entire expense of a new door when there are only scratches on it.

As for the old door still being in place, an owner or landlord does not have to repair or replace items that they charge tenants for within a certain time period.

Charging the tenants for a new door in this situation seems a bit over the top, but not necessarily fraudulent. If the building manager refuses to return their $400, you could file a claim in conciliation court requesting that it be refunded. Remember to attach proof of the door's minor scratches by taking photos and attaching them to your paperwork. In addition, if you do file a claim, you should also contact the landlord and ask for all information regarding the door, including documents showing the date it was ordered, the actual cost and the name of the manufacturer. If the landlord brings none of this information to court, you have a better chance of persuading the court that this was a scam.

Kelly Klein is a Minneapolis attorney. Participation in this column does not create an attorney/client relationship with Klein. Do not rely on advice in this column for legal opinions. Consult an attorney regarding your particular issues. E-mail renting questions to kklein@kleinpa.com, or write to Kelly Klein c/o Star Tribune, 650 3rd Av. S., Minneapolis, MN 55488. Information provided by readers is not confidential.