Free Alaska Security Deposit Itemization Form

An Alaska Security Deposit Itemized Statement of Deductions is the line-by-line accounting a landlord must put in writing whenever any part of a tenant’s deposit is kept. Under Alaska Stat. Section 34.03.070(b), accrued rent and damages must be itemized by the landlord in a written notice mailed to the tenant’s last known address within the deadline in subsection (g) — fourteen days after termination and delivery of possession, or thirty days where the landlord deducts for tenant-caused damage or the tenant gave no proper notice. Skip the itemization or pad it with wear-and-tear charges, and subsection (d) exposes a landlord who wilfully withholds to double the amount wrongfully withheld.

Complete the builder below to generate a state-compliant Alaska itemized statement of deductions, ready to print, sign, and mail by certified mail. Enter the original deposit, list each deduction with a specific description under Alaska Stat. 34.03.070(b), and the generator subtracts the total deductions from the deposit to compute the refund balance automatically — both live on the page and in the downloaded PDF. Fill every line specifically; a vague, lump-sum entry is what fuels most Alaska deposit disputes and is routinely reduced in district court.

Watch: Alaska Security Deposit Itemized Statement explained

▶ Watch overview

An Alaska Security Deposit Itemized Statement of Deductions is the document Alaska Stat. 34.03.070(b) actually names. The statute does not merely tell a landlord to return whatever is left of the deposit; it tells the landlord that when accrued rent or damages are charged against the deposit, those amounts must be itemized by the landlord in a written notice mailed to the tenant’s last known address. In other words, the right to keep any portion of the deposit is conditioned on producing this written, line-by-line accounting. A landlord who keeps money but never sends a proper itemization has not met the condition, and the retained money becomes an amount “wrongfully withheld” for the purposes of the double-damages remedy in subsection (d).

This is why the itemized statement, not the cover letter, is the legally load-bearing document. The Alaska Security Deposit Return Letter is the friendly cover accounting a landlord mails with the refund check; this itemized statement is the exhibit that satisfies the statute’s demand for detail. Many careful Alaska landlords send both — a brief cover letter and this schedule of deductions — but if only one document is prepared, it should be the itemization, because that is the writing the statute requires. Both share the same deposit arithmetic: the original deposit plus any interest, minus the sum of the itemized deductions, equals the refund balance owed to the tenant, or the balance the tenant still owes when the deductions run higher than the deposit.

The itemization also protects the landlord as much as it informs the tenant. A specific, receipted line item is evidence; a lump-sum “cleaning and repairs” figure is an invitation to litigate. When a departing tenant sees each charge named, quantified, and tied to a receipt or a dated photograph, disputes tend to evaporate before they reach the Alaska district court. When the tenant sues anyway, the itemized statement is the landlord’s first exhibit, and its quality often decides the case. Building the statement carefully at move-out is therefore not paperwork for its own sake; it is the difference between a defensible deduction and a wrongful withholding that draws a penalty.

The itemized statement carries a clock, and the length of that clock is set by subsection (g). Under Alaska Stat. Section 34.03.070, the landlord must mail the written itemized notice and refund to the tenant within a fixed window measured from termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession. That window is the spine of the whole deposit process, and missing it is one of the surest routes to a double-damages claim.

The length of the window turns on two facts. Under subsection (g), if the landlord or tenant gives notice that complies with AS 34.03.290 — the statute governing periodic-tenancy termination notice — the landlord has fourteen days after the tenancy is terminated and possession is delivered to mail the itemized notice and refund. That fourteen-day window stretches to thirty days when the landlord deducts costs for damages suffered because of the tenant’s noncompliance with AS 34.03.120. And when the tenant does not give notice complying with AS 34.03.290 — or the landlord becomes aware the unit is abandoned — the deadline is thirty days regardless. Because the fourteen-day track is narrow, the safest habit is to date-stamp both termination and delivery of possession, confirm whether proper notice was given, and mail the itemized statement well before the applicable deadline.

A subtle point trips up many landlords: the very act of taking a damage deduction is what pushes a fourteen-day case into the thirty-day track. If a landlord gives or receives proper AS 34.03.290 notice but then itemizes even a single tenant-caused repair, the statute grants the extra time to assemble the accounting. That does not mean a landlord should wait; it means the law recognizes that documenting damage takes longer than simply cutting a full refund check. The prudent practice is to treat thirty days as the outer limit whenever any deduction appears on the statement, while still mailing as soon as the receipts and photographs are gathered.

When a landlord applies any part of the deposit to accrued rent or damages, Alaska Stat. 34.03.070(b) requires that the accrued rent and damages be itemized by the landlord in a written notice mailed to the tenant’s last known address within the time limit set by subsection (g). The itemization is not a formality; it is the statutory condition of lawfully keeping any money. Vague, lump-sum entries invite dispute and are routinely reduced or rejected in Alaska district court. Each line should name what was damaged or cleaned, why the charge was necessary, and the exact amount, and each should be backed by a receipt, invoice, or dated move-out photograph.

Subsection (b) also frames what may be deducted at all: the deposit may be applied to the payment of accrued rent and to the amount of damages the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant’s noncompliance with AS 34.03.120 — the tenant’s core obligations to keep the unit clean and to avoid deliberate or negligent damage. Critically, subsection (b) expressly excludes deterioration that is the result of normal wear and tear. In practice that means unpaid rent, repair of tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, and reasonable cleaning to restore the unit to its move-in condition may be itemized, while the ordinary aging of the unit may not. The generator above produces the deposit accounting exactly in this order: original deposit plus any interest, minus the itemized deductions, equals the refund balance owed.

Alaska’s deduction rule is narrow by design, and the itemized statement should reflect that discipline. Subsection (b) permits the deposit to be applied only to accrued rent and to damages from the tenant’s noncompliance with AS 34.03.120, and it excludes normal wear and tear. That distinction determines which lines belong on the statement. Ordinary wear and tear is the gradual aging every rental undergoes regardless of who lives there — faded paint, minor scuffs, carpet flattened along a normal traffic path, and small nail holes from hanging pictures. These are the cost of doing business as a landlord, not chargeable losses, and a landlord who itemizes them is listing amounts the statute does not allow.

Damage is different, and it is the proper subject of the statement. Deterioration caused by the tenant’s deliberate or negligent conduct, or by a guest or occupant, may be itemized — a cigarette burn in the carpet, a hole punched in drywall, a broken window, or pet urine soaked into the subfloor. Accrued rent, including an unpaid final month or a partial period, is likewise a legitimate line. Reasonable cleaning that returns the unit to its move-in condition, above and beyond ordinary tidying, may also be itemized when documented. The dividing line matters because a landlord who dresses up ordinary wear as damage and itemizes it is not only withholding unlawfully but also feeding the wilful-withholding analysis that triggers double damages under subsection (d).

When a line item is genuinely a judgment call, prorate for the item’s useful life rather than charging the full replacement cost, and state that reasoning on the statement. A carpet with a ten-year expected life that is ruined after seven years of tenancy has roughly three years of value left; itemizing the full replacement cost overreaches, while itemizing the depreciated portion attributable to the tenant’s damage is defensible. Alaska courts and tenants alike respond better to a transparent, prorated number with an explanation than to a full-price demand that ignores the item’s age. The itemized statement is the place to show that math.

Alaska’s enforcement mechanism sits in subsection (d): if the landlord wilfully fails to comply with the itemization-and-return duty in subsection (b), the tenant may recover an amount not to exceed twice the actual amount wrongfully withheld. Read that arithmetic carefully — the tenant can recover the wrongfully held deposit itself and, on top of it, an equal amount as a penalty, so a landlord who keeps money he was not entitled to keep can end up owing roughly double once the penalty is stacked. The word wilfully is the hinge: an honest, documented, timely itemized statement is not a wilful violation, while ignoring the deadline or padding deductions with wear-and-tear charges is exactly the conduct the penalty targets.

The related duty in subsection (c) reinforces why sound deposit handling matters from day one. All money paid to the landlord as prepaid rent or as a security deposit must be promptly deposited, wherever practicable, in a trust account in a bank, savings and loan association, or with a licensed escrow agent, and it must be separately accounted for and not commingled. Treating the deposit as trust money — not operating cash — keeps the funds available to refund on time and reinforces the good-faith posture that defeats a double-damages claim. For guidance on the broader framework, see the comprehensive Alaska security deposit laws guide, and prepare the upstream documentation with the Alaska Move-In / Move-Out Inspection Checklist.

Because the length of the deadline depends on how the tenancy ended, Alaska landlords need a clear, dated record of both termination and the notice that preceded it before they finalize the itemized statement. Termination occurs when the tenancy legally ends — by the expiration of a fixed term, by proper notice under AS 34.03.290, or by other lawful means — and the clock in subsection (g) does not begin until possession has actually been delivered. The safest practice is to fix the delivery-of-possession date the moment keys are returned and to confirm it in writing to the tenant, so there is no later dispute about when the window opened.

The AS 34.03.290 notice is what decides the fourteen-versus-thirty question on the no-deduction track. Alaska’s periodic-tenancy rules generally require thirty days’ written notice before the rental due date to end a month-to-month tenancy, with a shorter period for a week-to-week tenancy. When that proper notice is given and the landlord is not deducting for damage, the fourteen-day return window applies. When no proper notice was given, or when the landlord is itemizing damages the tenant caused, the thirty-day window applies. A landlord who is unsure which track governs should treat the thirty-day deadline as the outer limit and still aim to mail the itemized statement as early as the documentation allows.

Landlords should also remember that the deposit is trust money throughout the tenancy. Under subsection (c) it should sit, wherever practicable, in a separate trust account rather than in operating funds, and it should not be commingled with the landlord’s own money. Keeping the deposit segregated is not merely good bookkeeping; it means the exact funds are on hand to refund within the statutory window, which is itself evidence of the good faith that defeats a double-damages claim. A landlord who cannot lay hands on the deposit money when the itemized statement is due has already undermined the good-faith posture the statute rewards.

The strength of an Alaska itemized statement rises and falls on its documentation. For every deduction, keep the underlying proof: a contractor invoice, a store receipt for materials, a cleaning company bill, or dated photographs showing the damage next to the move-in condition. A well-run file pairs each line item on the statement with a corresponding exhibit, so that if the tenant sues, the landlord can show the deduction was a real, quantified, tenant-caused cost rather than an estimate or a disguised wear-and-tear charge. The itemized statement and its exhibits should read as a single package that a district court judge could follow line by line.

When a tenant disputes a deduction, respond in writing and reference the specific line item and its supporting document. Many disputes evaporate once the tenant sees the receipt and the photo. Where a charge is a genuine judgment call — a carpet with three years of life left, replaced after five years of use — proration protects the landlord: itemize only the depreciated value attributable to the tenant’s damage, and explain the calculation on the statement. Courts and tenants both respond better to a transparent, prorated number than to a full-replacement demand that ignores the item’s age. Because subsection (d) puts double-damages exposure on the table for a wilful violation, the economics almost always favor a documented, reasonable itemization over an aggressive one that a court may later find was made in bad faith.

Keep in mind that the tenant’s remedy is not limited to a defensive posture. An Alaska tenant who receives no itemized statement, or a statement that pads charges, can bring an affirmative claim and, if the withholding is found wilful, recover up to twice the amount wrongfully withheld. That is why the discipline of a clean itemized statement pays for itself: it is not only a shield in litigation but also the practical thing that keeps litigation from starting.

• Assuming fourteen days always applies. The fourteen-day window only applies when proper AS 34.03.290 notice was given and no damage deductions are taken; otherwise the deadline to mail the itemized notice is thirty days under subsection (g).
• Skipping the itemization to save time. Retaining any portion without the written itemized notice required by subsection (b) is precisely the failure that turns into wilful withholding and double damages under subsection (d).
• Itemizing normal wear and tear. Subsection (b) permits deductions only for accrued rent and AS 34.03.120 damage and excludes normal wear and tear. Listing faded paint or ordinary carpet wear converts a lawful accounting into a wrongful retention.
• Commingling the deposit. Subsection (c) directs the deposit into a trust account, wherever practicable, and requires separate accounting; mixing it with operating funds undermines both compliance and the good-faith defense.
• Using vague line items. Entries like a lump cleaning charge with no description are routinely reduced by Alaska courts; each deduction needs a specific description and supporting documentation.
• Mailing to the wrong address or keeping no proof. Subsection (b) requires mailing the itemized notice to the tenant’s last known address; without a certified-mail receipt, a landlord has little to show the statement was sent on time.

• AS 34.03.070(a) — Deposit cap: a landlord may not demand or receive a security deposit and prepaid rent exceeding two months’ periodic rent, except where the monthly rent exceeds two thousand dollars.
• AS 34.03.070(b) — Application and itemization: the deposit may be applied to accrued rent and to AS 34.03.120 damages, which must be itemized in a written notice mailed to the tenant’s last known address within the subsection (g) time limit; normal wear and tear is excluded.
• AS 34.03.070(c) — Trust account: deposit and prepaid rent must be promptly deposited, wherever practicable, in a trust account in a bank, savings and loan association, or with a licensed escrow agent, separately accounted for, and not commingled.
• AS 34.03.070(d) — Remedy: a landlord who wilfully fails to comply with subsection (b) is liable for up to twice the actual amount wrongfully withheld.
• AS 34.03.070(g) — Deadline: fourteen days after termination and delivery of possession where AS 34.03.290 notice was given and no damage is deducted; thirty days where damage is deducted or no proper notice was given.
• AS 34.03.120 & AS 34.03.290 — The cross-referenced tenant-obligation and termination-notice statutes that define, respectively, itemizable damage and the notice that sets the fourteen-day track.

Always confirm the current text before relying on it; verify Alaska Stat. Section 34.03.070 at the Alaska State Legislature statutes site.

• Document condition at both ends of the tenancy with a dated move-in and move-out checklist and photographs, so every itemized line traces to a documented change.
• Mail the itemized statement by certified mail, return receipt requested, to create dated proof that you met the fourteen-day or thirty-day deadline.
• Attach receipts and invoices for every repair and cleaning charge; prorate replacement costs for the item’s useful life rather than itemizing full price for a partially worn item.
• Hold the deposit in a separate trust account from the start under subsection (c), so the exact funds are available to refund within the statutory window.
• Pair the itemized statement with a short Alaska deposit return letter as the cover accounting when you mail the refund check.
• Screen tenants thoroughly before move-in; the cleanest deposit returns come from tenants whose history was verified up front.

Because the itemized statement lives or dies on its arithmetic, it helps to walk a concrete case in both directions. Suppose an Anchorage landlord collected a security deposit of one thousand five hundred dollars on a unit renting for seven hundred fifty dollars a month. At move-out the tenant gave proper AS 34.03.290 notice, so absent any damage the fourteen-day track would apply; but the landlord finds three chargeable items, which pushes the statement onto the thirty-day track. The itemized deductions are drywall repair to a punched hole in the north bedroom for two hundred twenty-five dollars, professional carpet cleaning to remove pet stains beyond ordinary use for one hundred seventy-five dollars, and one hundred dollars in accrued rent for a partial final period. The three lines total five hundred dollars. Subtracting five hundred dollars from the one thousand five hundred dollar deposit leaves a refund balance of one thousand dollars owed to the tenant. The statement shows the deposit, lists the three lines with their descriptions, totals the deductions, and prints the one thousand dollar refund — and the generator above produces exactly that number, both live on the page and in the PDF.

Now flip the case so the deductions exceed the deposit. Imagine the same one thousand five hundred dollar deposit, but the tenant left owing a full final month of seven hundred fifty dollars in accrued rent, caused eight hundred dollars in documented damage to a stained and scorched countertop, and left the unit requiring three hundred dollars of documented deep cleaning. Those lines total one thousand eight hundred fifty dollars. Subtracting the deposit of one thousand five hundred dollars leaves the tenant owing three hundred fifty dollars beyond the deposit. Here the refund balance is zero and the statement must state the additional three hundred fifty dollars the tenant owes, supported by the same itemized detail and receipts. The obligation to send the itemized statement does not disappear just because there is no refund; subsection (b) requires the writing whenever any portion is retained, and the generator handles this negative case by printing an “additional balance owed by tenant” line rather than a refund. A landlord who simply keeps the deposit and mails a demand for the extra three hundred fifty dollars without the statutory itemization has skipped the very step that makes the retention lawful.

Alaska’s deposit statute governs more than the return; it also constrains what may be collected and how it must be held, and those upstream rules shape the itemized statement. Under Alaska Stat. 34.03.070(a), a landlord may not demand or receive prepaid rent or a security deposit, however it is labeled, in an amount exceeding two months’ periodic rent, and that two-month cap does not apply to a rental unit whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand dollars. The practical lesson for the statement is that the “original deposit” line should reflect only what was lawfully collected as a deposit. Money the tenant paid as prepaid rent is accounted for separately and is not itself a deposit deduction; if the tenant’s prepaid rent covered the final period, there is simply no accrued-rent line to itemize for that period.

Alaska law does not impose a statutory interest rate that a landlord must pay on a residential security deposit the way some states do, so most Alaska statements show no interest line at all. Where a lease or a local arrangement provides for interest, or where the deposit sat in an interest-bearing trust account and the agreement credits that interest to the tenant, the generator includes an optional interest field that is added to the deposit before the deductions are subtracted. Adding interest increases the amount owed back to the tenant, so it is entered as a positive number alongside the original deposit. When no interest applies, the field is left at zero and the statement omits the line entirely, which is the common Alaska case.

Subsection (c) ties these collection rules to the good-faith theme that runs through the whole section. All money paid as prepaid rent or as a security deposit must be promptly deposited, wherever practicable, in a trust account in a bank, savings and loan association, or with a licensed escrow agent, and the landlord must separately account for the prepaid rent and security deposit received from each tenant without commingling them with other funds. A landlord who honors subsection (c) throughout the tenancy arrives at move-out with the exact deposit money available, an interest history if any, and clean records — precisely the documentation that makes an itemized statement both easy to prepare and hard to attack.

Two mechanical details in subsection (b) and subsection (g) decide whether a statement is timely and effective: where it is mailed and when the clock starts. The statute directs the landlord to mail the written itemized notice to the tenant’s last known address. When a tenant leaves a forwarding address, that address is plainly the last known address and the choice is easy. When a tenant vanishes without one, the landlord must use the best address it has — frequently the address of the rental unit itself, or an emergency contact or employer address captured on the rental application. Mailing to the last known address the landlord actually has, and keeping proof of that mailing, satisfies the statute even if the letter is later returned; the landlord’s duty is to mail properly, not to guarantee the tenant reads it.

Abandonment changes when the clock starts. Under subsection (g), when the tenant does not give notice complying with AS 34.03.290, the thirty-day window runs from the later of termination, delivery of possession, or the point at which the landlord becomes aware that the dwelling unit is abandoned. In an abandonment case there is often no clean key-return date, so the landlord should document the facts that established abandonment — unpaid rent, removed belongings, disconnected utilities, an unreachable tenant — and date that determination, because it anchors the deadline for the itemized statement. Handling abandonment correctly also intersects with the broader Alaska lease termination rules, since the manner of termination is what selects the fourteen-day or thirty-day track in the first place.

Every credible itemized statement rests on a baseline established at move-in. AS 34.03.120 defines the tenant’s obligation to keep the unit as clean and safe as its condition permits and to avoid deliberate or negligent damage, and a deduction under subsection (b) is only as strong as the proof that the tenant fell short of that standard. The way to build that proof is a dated, photographed move-in and move-out inspection that records the condition of each room, appliance, floor, wall, and fixture at the start of the tenancy and again at the end. When the move-out photos show damage that the move-in photos do not, the itemized line is nearly unassailable; when there is no move-in record, the same line becomes a landlord’s word against a tenant’s, and Alaska courts tend to resolve that ambiguity in the tenant’s favor.

The baseline also disciplines the wear-and-tear line the statute cares about most. Because subsection (b) excludes normal wear and tear, the honest question for each item is whether the change from move-in to move-out reflects ordinary aging or tenant misuse. A carpet that shows a uniform, light traffic path is wear; a carpet with a bleach spot or a pet-urine stain is damage. Paint that has simply dulled over a multi-year tenancy is wear; a wall with crayon murals or unpatched anchor holes is damage. The move-in photographs let the landlord draw that line honestly and show the reasoning, which is exactly what keeps an itemized statement from tipping into the wilful-withholding territory that triggers double damages.

A recurring source of confusion is the line between a refundable security deposit and a separately labeled fee, and the itemized statement should reflect that distinction rather than blur it. Alaska Stat. 34.03.070(a) reaches prepaid rent and a security deposit “however denominated,” which means a landlord cannot dodge the two-month cap by calling part of the deposit something else. But the accounting on this statement runs against the sum that was actually collected and held as a refundable deposit. If a landlord and tenant agreed to a genuinely non-refundable charge that is permitted by the lease, that money is not part of the refundable deposit being reconciled here and should not appear as either a deposit line or a deduction line; mixing it in overstates the deposit and invites a dispute about what was really refundable.

Pet-related charges illustrate the point. Where a pet deposit was collected as a refundable deposit, it is part of the deposit reconciled on this statement, and pet damage beyond ordinary wear — a chewed door frame, a urine-soaked subfloor — is itemized against it like any other damage. Where a lease instead charged a non-refundable pet fee, that fee is not reconciled here; the landlord may still itemize actual pet damage against the refundable security deposit, but it may not itemize the same damage twice or treat the fee as if it were a deduction. Keeping the statement limited to the refundable deposit and its lawful deductions is what keeps the arithmetic honest and the good-faith posture intact.

The itemized statement is only as good as the file behind it, and Alaska’s short deadlines make timing a documentation problem as much as a legal one. From the day the tenancy ends, the landlord is assembling three things in parallel: the dated proof of termination and delivery of possession that starts the subsection (g) clock, the receipts and photographs that support each itemized line, and the certified-mail record that proves the statement was mailed on time to the last known address. Because the fourteen-day track is so tight, a landlord who waits to gather receipts until the deadline is near risks either missing the window or sending an incomplete statement, both of which erode the good-faith defense.

Retention matters after the statement is sent, too. A tenant’s affirmative claim under subsection (d) will not always arrive immediately, so the prudent practice is to keep the signed statement, the underlying receipts and invoices, the paired move-in and move-out photographs, and the certified-mail receipt together for at least three years. That single file answers the two questions an Alaska court will ask — was the statement timely, and was each deduction real and lawful — and it converts what could be a swearing contest into a documented record. Treated this way, the itemized statement is not merely a form to fill out at move-out; it is the capstone of a documentation habit that begins at move-in and protects the landlord long after the keys change hands.

Most Alaska deposit disputes that are not resolved by the itemized statement itself land in the small-claims division of the district court, where the amounts are modest and the procedure is informal. In that forum the itemized statement is the landlord’s central exhibit, and the practical burden falls on the landlord to show that each deduction was for accrued rent or for damage caused by the tenant’s noncompliance with AS 34.03.120 rather than for excluded wear and tear. A statement that names each item, states its amount, and is backed by matching receipts and paired move-in and move-out photographs lets the landlord meet that burden line by line. A vague statement forces the landlord to reconstruct the case from memory, which rarely persuades.

The tenant, for their part, is not limited to defending; a tenant who received no itemized statement, or one padded with wear-and-tear charges, can affirmatively seek up to twice the amount wrongfully withheld under subsection (d). The word that decides the penalty is wilfully. A landlord who made an honest, documented, timely accounting — even one a court later trims on a judgment call — is generally not a wilful violator, and the court simply adjusts the number. A landlord who ignored the deadline, sent nothing, or knowingly charged for ordinary wear invites the doubling. This asymmetry is the strongest practical argument for preparing the itemized statement with care: a reasonable, well-documented statement caps the downside at the disputed line items, while a careless one puts the entire withheld sum, doubled, on the table. Pairing this statement with a short deposit return letter and retaining the whole file for at least three years is the low-cost habit that keeps a landlord on the safe side of that line.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.