There's the rub. The landlord doesn't have anything to withhold. He didn't collect a security deposit so there's no security deposit to withhold. He submits his bills to the bonding company.
Think of it like bail. The court doesn't hold the defendant's money when the defendant buys a bail bond. The court has no obligation to return any money to the defendant or justify to the defendant what it collects from the bonding company when the defendant skips.
But that's exactly what the bonding company ends up doing. The landlord waives the security deposit. The tenant has a contract with the bonding company where he agrees to reimburse the bonding company for any money it pays to the landlord.
Granted, I haven't seen a copy of the Suredeposit bond form so I can't say what, if any, the process is for disputing the amount of the damages other than it would be between the tenant and the bonding company and the landlord would be out of the picture.
I found an appellate case in Ohio which supports my contention:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...fffffffffffe04
The Ohio Court of Appeals, in Kopp v. Associated Estates Realty Corp - 2010, ruled that the Suredeposit bond was not a security deposit and not subject to the Ohio security deposit law.
I have not found any decisions for Michigan on point and the few other cases around the country that involved Suredeposit did not involve the tenant suing for the return of money.
Obviously, the Ohio decision is not precedential in Michigan and whether or not it would be persuasive in Michigan is anybody's guess, but it's logic suits me.

