Digressing for a moment, the Michigan eavesdropping statute is poorly constructed, but I think the interpretation followed by the Michigan court's is less problematic than an interpretation that says you would be "eavesdropping" by recording a conversation between yourself and one other person on the basis that it's the conversation "of others", or that recording one person would be okay but adding a second person to the conversation would transform the recording into a felony offense even if the second person knew that he was being recorded. The legislature has chosen not to improve the statute, so the courts do the best they can.

In relation to security deposits, the text of the statute does support the court's interpretation, and it actually makes sense to distinguish when a landlord can act to collect money from a tenant when he's not holding the tenant's money, as opposed to putting him on a short schedule to return the tenant's money if he cannot make a timely claim against it. The statutory speaks of "damage to the rental unit or other obligation against the security deposit", and in context the term "other" indicates a dependence between "damage to the rental unit" and "obligation against the security deposit". These cases are litigated because the legislature isn't exercising sufficient care in drafting statutes, but the courts are making reasonable interpretations and the fact that the legislature has allowed the interpretations to stand for decades suggests that the legislature is not offended by the courts' rulings.