In Smith v. Padgett (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 344, 513 N.E.2d 737, the tenants conceded the landlord provided them an itemized list of deductions, but claimed that doing so was insufficient to constitute full compliance with R.C. 5321.16(B.) The tenants maintained that a landlord who fails to refund the correct "amount due" from the security deposit has "wrongfully withheld" the amount owing, thus triggering the R.C. 5321.16(C) penalties. Id. at 348. The Padgett court concluded that "a landlord should not be allowed to escape the intent underlying the R.C. 5321.16(C) penalties by making a list of deductions. A landlord will not be deterred from making unfounded deductions from a security deposit if the penalties provided by R.C. 5321.16(C) can be avoided by tendering a list of facially justifiable reasons for the deductions." Id. The court expressly held that "under R.C. 5321.16(B) and (C), a landlord who wrongfully withholds a portion of a tenant's security deposit is liable for damages equal to twice the amount wrongfully withheld and for reasonable attorney fees. Such liability is mandatory, even if the landlord gave the tenant an itemized list of deductions from the deposit pursuant to R.C. 5321.16(B.)" Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. In Padgett, supra, the tenants sought the balance of their security deposit and also set forth a claim for breach of contract. The Ohio Supreme Court held that "If the trial court finds a landlord has wrongfully withheld a portion of the tenant's security deposit, it shall determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded on the basis of the evidence presented. Although such determination shall not be reversed except upon abuse of discretion, the award must relate solely to the fees attributable to the tenant's security deposit claim under R.C. 5321.16." Padgett, supra, at paragraph four of the syllabus.