busted refrigerator

[dilly]

What is the name of your state? ca

my tenant's refrigerator went out and I quickly managed to get her a dorm frige as a temporary replacement until the old one's fixed. she's thrown out all of her freezer items despite the fact that they're still good. what are my responsibilities to replace food even if it's not spoiled. i by no means have a problem with replacing meat milk eggs, icecream and things of that nature.. but frozen pizza and frozen processed foods that are perfectly fine?? i feel like i'm being a bit taken advantage of.

 

[FarmerJ]

If you have taken reasonable steps to arrange for repair and offered a temp unit for tenant to use you have done enough. Heres some food for thought , your tenant could have made arrangments to store some things at a friends, You really have done enough . You also should consider finding another larger fridge , maybe not real huge but one that would even slide into a compact stationwagon and keep it in your garage at your home to use as a spare from now on.

 

[Cvillecpm]

No responsibility - your tenant could have bought a $5 cooler and $5 bags of ice and kept frozen items frozen....otherwise, your tenant can claim on their renter's insurance.

Learn what repair items are YOUR responsibility and which ones you should carefully explain to your tenant are NOT YOUR responsibility.

 

[Gadfly]

Next time you rent, put a clause in that specifies that the fridge (and any other appliances you are concerned about) are there and the tenant is free to use them, but if they fail you will not repair or replace them.

The food should be covered by the tenant's renters policy. . .oh, I bet she never got one did she? NOT your problem.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Ditto Cville. Also she could have chosen to eat the food instead of throwing it out.

 

[acmb05]

Next time you rent, put a clause in that specifies that the fridge (and any other appliances you are concerned about) are there and the tenant is free to use them, but if they fail you will not repair or replace them.

The food should be covered by the tenant's renters policy. . .oh, I bet she never got one did she? NOT your problem.

If they are in the rental when they move in, unless the tenant breaks them the landlord is responsible to replace or repair them.

 

[Alaska landlord]

If they are in the rental when they move in, unless the tenant breaks them the landlord is responsible to replace or repair them.

Generally that would be true. But I have to go with Gadfly. The landlord can stipulate in the lease that the rent is for the unit without appliances. Those furnished are there on a loan basis and LL may not necessarily repair if they fail.



I

 

[xylene]

Generally that would be true. But I have to go with Gadfly.

Then you are cruisin for a bruisin...

The landlord can stipulate in the lease that the rent is for the unit without appliances.

And then the not provide the appliances. Thats OK, its a bit (well very) uncommon for rental units to not have appliances... so few tenants will want to live there and those that do will want a reduction in rent for the SUBSTANDARD accomodations. You can't have rent and eat it too... "May or may not repair...." I am choking on my Chocolate Soda right now.

Those furnished are there on a loan basis and LL may not necessarily repair if they fail.

Why not say the furnace is a loaner... The plumbing... The light fixtures.

The fact that the landlord is NOT liable for the frozen food does not make Gadfly and yours advice sound. In fact it highlights your faulty logic.

 

[moburkes]

Here, when you rent a unit in a smaller building (like 4 suits or less, or 1 unit of a duplex), they hardly ever include appliances. However, I've seen where the previous tenant will have left the fridge or the stove, and the LL will offer it to the current tenant (so he won't have to move it),but it wasn't an included "feature". I'm assuming that this LL doesn't own a high rise.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Generally that would be true. But I have to go with Gadfly.

Then you are cruisin for a bruisin...

And then the not provide the appliances. Thats OK, its a bit (well very) uncommon for rental units to not have appliances... so few tenants will want to live there and those that do will want a reduction in rent for the SUBSTANDARD accomodations. You can't have rent and eat it too... "May or may not repair...." I am choking on my Chocolate Soda right now.

Why not say the furnace is a loaner... The plumbing... The light fixtures.

The fact that the landlord is NOT liable for the frozen food does not make Gadfly and yours advice sound. In fact it highlights your faulty logic.

Unless state law requires the landlord to furnish appliances such as refrigerators or stoves, then the landlord does not have to provide them. And no, that would not be a substandard unit. Like the poster has indicated “Here, when you rent a unit in a smaller building (like 4 suits or less, or 1 unit of a duplex), they hardly ever include appliances.”
That is more common than you think. Many tenants already have appliances that they prefer to bring with them.

The rest is just silly.

 

[xylene]

Unless state law requires the landlord to furnish appliances such as refrigerators or stoves, then the landlord does not have to provide them.

I never said a landlord would be required to provide appliances except as per state law... I was pointing out that your rationale for why the OP is correct in not paying for the tenants frozen food is INCORRECT. Duty to provide or not provide appliances has ZERO reason to do with his not being liable for food spoilage.

And no, that would not be a substandard unit.

Like the poster has indicated “Here, when you rent a unit in a smaller building (like 4 suits or less, or 1 unit of a duplex), they hardly ever include appliances.”
That is more common than you think. Many tenants already have appliances that they prefer to bring with them.

Good for those tenants. Then they got the deal they wanted... Personally I would never accept an apartment without appliances... but to each his own.

I am NOT saying a landlord must provide applainces. This is the law people. Nuance here.

Not required to provide its not going to change the fact that if a tenant is provided with appliances as part of the furnishings of dwelling unit leased to them then the landlord has a DUTY to maintain and repair and if required replace with appliances of the same condition should they break absent negligence or malefeasance on the tenants part. If you don't believe that then you do not fully understand how a lease works.

If you you think that including a 'no repair' clause is going to work... well your wrong.

If you think playing some cutsie game of "Well the old tenant left them for you." is going to cover you... wrong. Propertry belongs to someone. It does not exist in a stateless limbo like some palestinian refugee.

The 'old tenant' is NOT a party to a bargain between the landlord and the current leasee.

 

[moburkes]

Don't bring my words into this argument, xylene. All I was saying was that I disagreed with your statement that apartments come with this stuff. And, in my example, the landlord was GIVING, not LEASING the old tenant's fridge/stove/whatever to the tenant.

 

[Alaska landlord]

I am NOT saying a landlord must provide applainces. This is the law people. Nuance here.

Not required to provide its not going to change the fact that if a tenant is provided with appliances as part of the furnishings of dwelling unit leased to them then the landlord has a DUTY to maintain and repair and if required replace with appliances of the
same condition should they break absent negligence or malefeasance on the tenants part. If you don't believe that then you do not fully understand how a lease works.

If you you think that including a 'no repair' clause is going to work... well your wrong.

If you think playing some cutsie game of "Well the old tenant left them for you." is going to cover you... wrong. Propertry belongs to someone. It does not exist in a stateless limbo like some palestinian refugee.

The 'old tenant' is NOT a party to a bargain between the landlord and the current leasee.

You are making the mistake of applying the laws of your state to the entire country. Not all states have identical laws and you definitely are not privy to all state laws. For example; Vermont, AR, PA and several other states allow lease provisions allowing landlords to limit their liability regarding appliances.


VERMONT:
Appliances
Landlords are not required to provide appliances such as a stove and refrigerator, but since few tenants would rent apartments without such appliances, most landlords do supply them. If appliances are provided, the landlord is obligated to keep them in good working order, because there is an implied understanding that if the appliances are supplied they will work properly.
A landlord may be able to avoid responsibility for maintaining the appliances by putting a provision in the lease saying that he or she makes no representations about the condition of the appliances, and expressly states that the tenant is responsible for all repairs to the appliances. Tenants, however, should be extremely reluctant to sign a lease with such a provision since it means that in the future they may have to pay a lot of money to have the landlord's appliances repaired, or do without them.
If a landlord does not fix a broken appliance for which he or she is responsible the tenant may fix it and deduct the cost from the rent. See "Repair and Deduct", for the proper way to do this.
There is no law which addresses whether a landlord is liable to the tenant for the value of food lost because a refrigerator breaks down. A tenant who wishes to pursue this can try Small Claims Court and it is possible that a judge may order the landlord to pay compensation, if the judge decides that the landlord had knowledge that the refrigerator would fail or was otherwise negligent See "Using Small Claims Court".
http://www.cvoeo.org/vti/riv/2005/RIV- HTML8thEdition.htm#Applian

 

[Cvillecpm]

Let's focus....OP was questioning necessity for her to reimburse for lost or discarded food and the answer is NO. Tenants should have renter's insurance and prove to their carrier cost of the "lost food"....the owner is not responsible.

In this instance, OP should advise her tenant that if they choose not to have renter's insurance, then they self-insured for the loss of their food.