Legal advice on Security Deposit

[eengrms]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

First off Hi everyone. I'm new here so go easy on me.

Here's the situation. I'm a first time landlord who just had his tenants move out, legally at the lease end.

My lease specifies the following pet provision:

"...If applicable, there will be an additional non-refundable $125 annual fee for each animal, such as a cat or small (under 25 pounds) dog; or at a rate of $15 per month can be added to the base rent instead if Tenant/Lessee desires."

I come to find out from the neighbor (I live about 90 miles away from the property, so I didn't visit very often- good renters - didn't need to) that they had two dogs the entire time they were living there. I asked them on two separate occasions if they had any pets, once before they signed and once shortly thereafter, both times they said no. Am I legally in the right to backcharge them this amount from their security deposit, even though I never specifically saw the dogs myself?

Some insight here would be appreciated. I'm not trying to screw these people over, I just don't like being lied to and misled. Plus the dogs did some small amounts of damage here and there that I had to fix, but it would have been difficult to prove that it was above and beyond normal wear and tear, so this is my only recourse to recoup my expenses.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

First off Hi everyone. I'm new here so go easy on me.

Here's the situation. I'm a first time landlord who just had his tenants move out, legally at the lease end.

My lease specifies the following pet provision:

"...If applicable, there will be an additional non-refundable $125 annual fee for each animal, such as a cat or small (under 25 pounds) dog; or at a rate of $15 per month can be added to the base rent instead if Tenant/Lessee desires."

I come to find out from the neighbor (I live about 90 miles away from the property, so I didn't visit very often- good renters - didn't need to) that they had two dogs the entire time they were living there. I asked them on two separate occasions if they had any pets, once before they signed and once shortly thereafter, both times they said no. Am I legally in the right to backcharge them this amount from their security deposit, even though I never specifically saw the dogs myself?

Some insight here would be appreciated. I'm not trying to screw these people over, I just don't like being lied to and misled. Plus the dogs did some small amounts of damage here and there that I had to fix, but it would have been difficult to prove that it was above and beyond normal wear and tear, so this is my only recourse to recoup my expenses.

**A: you messed up by using and ambigious clause. at the time of the lease, you should have insisted on knowing how many pets they had or would have and forced them to pay the additional non-refundable monies based on that agreement. (if consistent with state law)
You can charge them for all damages caused by the pets but it is unlikely that a court would agree to your backcharging.

 

[eengrms]

Re: Re: Legal advice on Security Deposit

**A: you messed up by using and ambigious clause. at the time of the lease, you should have insisted on knowing how many pets they had or would have and forced them to pay the additional non-refundable monies based on that agreement. (if consistent with state law)
You can charge them for all damages caused by the pets but it is unlikely that a court would agree to your backcharging.

Is it the backcharging in general or the fact I didn't see the animals. What stops any tenant from telling a landlord up front they aren't going to have an animal then turning right around and getting one? Would I actually have to catch the animals there? What would stop them from saying they're just "dog-watching" then? I guess this is another time when the law and common sense don't agree.

Thanks for the quick reply.

P.S. Why don't the vB tags work on this board?

 

[HomeGuru]

Re: Re: Re: Legal advice on Security Deposit

Is it the backcharging in general or the fact I didn't see the animals. What stops any tenant from telling a landlord up front they aren't going to have an animal then turning right around and getting one? Would I actually have to catch the animals there? What would stop them from saying they're just "dog-watching" then? I guess this is another time when the law and common sense don't agree.

Thanks for the quick reply.

**A: if you are a landlord, one of the first things you needed to do was buy a book on the subject and get a copy of the Iowa L/T law. Next, you should check out the property at least once a month via a drive by and ciomplete an exterior and interior inspection every 6-12 months. If you cannot do these simnple tasks to maintain and protect your investment, then hire a rental management firm to do so.
********

P.S. Why don't the vB tags work on this board?

**AL they were removed and are being revised so we can use them as Christmas gift tags by direct order of Santa's workshop.

 

[eengrms]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? I have a copy of the Iowa L/T law, and it states nothing about my situation. That's why I'm asking. From the looks of this site and your responses, people obviously come here for your advice and not your personality...

 

[HomeGuru]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? I have a copy of the Iowa L/T law, and it states nothing about my situation. That's why I'm asking. From the looks of this site and your responses, people obviously come here for your advice and not your personality...

**A: ho, ho, ho.

 

[JETX]

Okay, lets try this again.... only slowly this time:

"I come to find out from the neighbor (I live about 90 miles away from the property, so I didn't visit very often- good renters - didn't need to) that they had two dogs the entire time they were living there."
*** Okay. First, your neighbor would have to be willing to testify to that, under oath in court. Second, the fact that they had dogs is immaterial, if the dogs were not indoors. So, she would have to be wiling to testify to that also. Third, if she is such a good neighbor, why didn't she tell you DURING the tenancy?? Fourth, she would have to testify that she DIDN'T tell you during the tenancy, because if she did and you did nothing, then that would be 'acceptance' of the violation.

"I asked them on two separate occasions if they had any pets, once before they signed and once shortly thereafter, both times they said no."
*** And here we get to the 'ambiguity' in your lease. Your lease says, "IF APPLICABLE" and "can be added". Those words imply OPTIONAL charges!!
They can simply say that they told you of the pets and you said, "Aw shucks, thats not APPLICABLE to those pets, I love ****zu's (or whatever!)".

"Am I legally in the right to backcharge them this amount from their security deposit, even though I never specifically saw the dogs myself?"
*** No. Your lease doesn't give you that right.... it only says "if applicable" and 'can be added'. The lease should have been specific, such as:
"Tenant agrees that pets are not allowed on the lease property. In the event that tenant violates this provision, tenant agrees to pay a penalty of $15.00 per month per animal for the duration of the violation." Then, if the tenant wants a pet, add a pet addendum: "Tenant agrees to pay a non-refundable $125 annual fee for each animal under 25 pounds. In the event that such pet or animal is larger than 25 pounds, tenant further agrees to pay $15.00 per month per animal to be added to rent."
Do you see the legal difference in your lease provision and what I offer above??

"Plus the dogs did some small amounts of damage here and there that I had to fix, but it would have been difficult to prove that it was above and beyond normal wear and tear, so this is my only recourse to recoup my expenses."
*** No its not. If the animals caused damages beyond normal wear and tear, itemize and deduct. Pretty simple.

 

[eengrms]

Okay, lets try this again.... only slowly this time:

"I come to find out from the neighbor (I live about 90 miles away from the property, so I didn't visit very often- good renters - didn't need to) that they had two dogs the entire time they were living there."
*** Okay. First, your neighbor would have to be willing to testify to that, under oath in court. Second, the fact that they had dogs is immaterial, if the dogs were not indoors. So, she would have to be wiling to testify to that also. Third, if she is such a good neighbor, why didn't she tell you DURING the tenancy?? Fourth, she would have to testify that she DIDN'T tell you during the tenancy, because if she did and you did nothing, then that would be 'acceptance' of the violation.

"I asked them on two separate occasions if they had any pets, once before they signed and once shortly thereafter, both times they said no."
*** And here we get to the 'ambiguity' in your lease. Your lease says, "IF APPLICABLE" and "can be added". Those words imply OPTIONAL charges!!
They can simply say that they told you of the pets and you said, "Aw shucks, thats not APPLICABLE to those pets, I love ****zu's (or whatever!)".

"Am I legally in the right to backcharge them this amount from their security deposit, even though I never specifically saw the dogs myself?"
*** No. Your lease doesn't give you that right.... it only says "if applicable" and 'can be added'. The lease should have been specific, such as:
"Tenant agrees that pets are not allowed on the lease property. In the event that tenant violates this provision, tenant agrees to pay a penalty of $15.00 per month per animal for the duration of the violation." Then, if the tenant wants a pet, add a pet addendum: "Tenant agrees to pay a non-refundable $125 annual fee for each animal under 25 pounds. In the event that such pet or animal is larger than 25 pounds, tenant further agrees to pay $15.00 per month per animal to be added to rent."
Do you see the legal difference in your lease provision and what I offer above??

"Plus the dogs did some small amounts of damage here and there that I had to fix, but it would have been difficult to prove that it was above and beyond normal wear and tear, so this is my only recourse to recoup my expenses."
*** No its not. If the animals caused damages beyond normal wear and tear, itemize and deduct. Pretty simple.

******* Thanks for the advice.