In Nelson v. Tipton (Nov. 18, 1999), Franklin App. No. 99AP-277, 1999 Ohio App, the Court provided an example of when a trial court would not abuse its discretion allowing recovery of reasonable attorney fees attributable to both the tenant's security deposit claim and the landlord's claim for damages: An example of a case involving indivisible claims would be where the parties merely disputed how much, if any, of the security deposit was returnable. Such dispute may come in the form of two different claims such as a tenant's R.C. 5321.16 security deposit claim and a landlord's property damage/breach of contract claim. The landlord may have withheld part of the security deposit because the tenant allegedly failed to maintain the premises as required under R.C. 5321.05, and the landlord had to expend funds to correct any problems attributable to the tenant. Such funds would be properly withheld from the security deposit. The resulting disputes, even if in the form of two separate claims become virtually indivisible from each other. In such a case, the trial court would not abuse its discretion in granting all of the tenant's reasonable attorneys fees because the claims themselves essentially involve the same subject matter - the security deposit. (Tipton, 1999 Ohio App).