Owe tenant a rent refund?

[kookadala]

California
The tenant paid for the entire month of August, but moved out mid month, left the key on the counter, and refused to sign the paperwork regarding a move out pre-inspection. I changed the locks and the tenant went to pick up any mail and stated that since I changed the locks, I owe him a rent refund for the days he could not access the property.

The tenant had been a real jerk about the open houses I had planned and the whole move out situation. Do I owe him a rent refund?

 

[justalayman]

When did anybody provide any sort of proper notice that either the tenant was leaving or you as the landlord you were terminating the tenancy?

Did the tenant live there over 1 year?

 

[latigo]

California
The tenant paid for the entire month of August, but moved out mid month, left the key on the counter, and refused to sign the paperwork regarding a move out pre-inspection. I changed the locks and the tenant went to pick up any mail and stated that since I changed the locks, I owe him a rent refund for the days he could not access the property.

The tenant had been a real jerk about the open houses I had planned and the whole move out situation. Do I owe him a rent refund?

Do you owe him a rent refund? Not unless the rental was by the day or week, which it obviously wasn't.

More likely he owes you for September.

Also, vacating the unit and surrendering the key is clear evidence of the tenant's abandonment giving you the right to change the locks to secure your property. But apparently he did not surrender all the keys to the place. Otherwise how would he know the locks were changed?

Whatever, don't lose any sleep over it. He has not legal claim to a refund. If he pushes you, then you push back for September.

 

[kookadala]

The tenant did give a 30-day notice that he was leaving. He lived there for three years. Obviously the key he returned was not the only copy he had. He also returned the single garage door remote control which he was given when he moved in.

I agree that it appeared that the tenant abandoned the unit when I found the key and garage remote inside the unit.

 

[justalayman]

Since california requires 30 days notice from the tenant irrespective of when the rental period begins, depending what date the notice was given and what date the tenant gave as their last date of occupancy, you could owe then a refund of the remainer of August.

So, one more time;

When was the notice given and what was the effective date given.?


I have no idea why Latigo believes the tenant might owe for September. Since the tenant did give notice of termination of the occupancy presumably sometime before mid August, unless he gave you some end date in or beyond sept 1, he would owe you no more than the part of September that those days combined with the days in August after the date the notice was given equal 30 days

 

[latigo]

. . . . I have no idea why Latigo believes the tenant might owe for September. . . .

Why? Because initially there was no mention whatsoever of the tenant giving the landlord any advance notice of his intention to quit!

The tenant paid for the entire month of August, but moved out mid month, left the key on the counter, and refused to sign the paperwork regarding a move out pre-inspection. I changed the locks and the tenant went to pick up any mail and stated that since I changed the locks, I owe him a rent refund for the days he could not access the property. . . . . Do I owe him a rent refund?

And it is clear that rent would continue to accrue for a period of not less than 30-days following the tenant's compliance with Section 1946 of California's Civil Code and Section 1162 of that state's Code of Civil Procedure.

Now where I'm puzzled is understanding why the landlord would be obligate to return any payment of rent that accrued up to the date the tenant declared to be his last date of occupancy. Whether the tenant remained in possession or not. All of which seems to be a reasonable interpretation of this from your response:

you could owe then a refund of the remainder of August depending what date the notice was given and what date the tenant gave as their last date of occupancy.

 

[justalayman]

latigo;3289426]Why? Because initially there was no mention whatsoever of the tenant giving the landlord any advance notice of his intention to quit!

there was a presumption given the statement regarding the pre-vacation inspection. Come on latigo, you are more adept than that.

And it is clear that rent would continue to accrue for a period of not less than 30-days following the tenant's compliance with Section 1946 of California's Civil Code and Section 1162 of that state's Code of Civil Procedure.

rigth but since California requires 30 days, and not a rental period, if notice was given mid August, it would mean the tenant owed no more than until mid september, not all of it.

Now where I'm puzzled is understanding why the landlord would be obligate to return any payment of rent that accrued up to the date the tenant declared to be his last date of occupancy. Whether the tenant remained in possession or not. All of which seems to be a reasonable interpretation of this from your response:

without the facts I'm not willing to say he would be due anything or not. OP refused to provide the info necessary to make the call. It has to be known when the notice was given and what the effective date was. Without that, everything else is a guess. I simply had a problem with your statement, without the information available that would allow you to stand behind such a statement, that the tenant would owe for September.

So, depending on the facts, the LL may owe a refund. Then again, he may not. A simple example:

tenant gave a 30 day notice in mid July. Tenant paid all August rent when due not considering he would be leaving mid Aug. He left mid August like his notice provided for. Landlord would owe a refund of the unused portion of Aug rent.

Given the lack of information provided, I see no reason that is any less possible than any scenario where the tenant would owe to the end of Aug or especially into September.

just in case you really wish to stand by your statements, I'll repost them here:

Do you owe him a rent refund? Not unless the rental was by the day or week, which it obviously wasn't.

More likely he owes you for September.

Also, vacating the unit and surrendering the key is clear evidence of the tenant's abandonment giving you the right to change the locks to secure your property. But apparently he did not surrender all the keys to the place. Otherwise how would he know the locks were changed?

Whatever, don't lose any sleep over it. He has not legal claim to a refund. If he pushes you, then you push back for September.

You did not give any consideration of the possibility the notice actually was given 30 days prior to mid august. I believe you really went beyond the likely scenario where the tenant gave adequate notice that he would leave at the end of August when you suggested the tenant may owe for September.

So, let me give you what I suspect is the truth:

tenant gave proper notice of termination of tenancy effective the end of August. Tenant left mid-month. As was stated, since the landlord denied access to the premises after a valid claim of apparent abandonment, tenant wanted a refund of the remainder of Aug rent. Obviously since by law the tenant was required to provide 30 days notice, as long as the landlord can argue there was a reasonable belief the unit had been abandoned, there would be no refund due.

Now nowhere in that scenario would the landlord ever have any right to claim rent for September. That is the only real issue I had with your statement. I believe it was an exaggeration beyond what was reasonable to believe the situation was.

 

[Zigner]

Now where I'm puzzled is understanding why the landlord would be obligate to return any payment of rent that accrued up to the date the tenant declared to be his last date of occupancy. Whether the tenant remained in possession or not. All of which seems to be a reasonable interpretation of this from your response:

He'd be entitled to a refund because the LL entered the unit without permission or notice and proceeded to deny access to the unit for a period of time when the tenant had every right to access the unit.

How did the LL know a key was on the counter? By entering the unit illegally!

 

[kookadala]

Wow, this has gotten more intense then I expected. Let's see if I can add more detail.

The tenant stated in his 30 day move out notification that he would be leaving the end of August. When landlord informed tenant of open house plans, the tenant refused to cooperate event though the terms of the rental agreement stated that the landlord can show the unit to prospective renters, and California legal decision stated that a landlord may conduct two open houses per month. Once an open house date was set for the middle of the month, the tenant subsequently stated that he would be vacating the unit prior to the open house. When the landlord entered the unit on the predetermined (with written notification) open house date (NOT illegal entry), he found the key, the garage door opener, no possessions, and the refrigerator turned off. This is when the landlord had the place rekeyed since the tenant had obviously vacated the unit. The tenant subsequently (4 days before end of month) had the electricity turned off to the unit. No new renter was acquired prior to the end of August, and tenant does NOT owe for September.

 

[FarmerJ]

You changed the locks during time the tenant had paid for, that means you denied the tenant the chance to finish using time they paid for because that tenant could have come back for all you know and slept in a sleeping bag on the floor using a flash light if they needed for one night, after all they paid for it. If you had not changed the locks then I would feel other wise so DO you really think the courts in the pro tenant state of CA would agree with you and tell you that you owe nothing to the tenant ? ( hint speak to your atty about a lease that defines abandonment & including wording that addresses the disconnection of utilities???) If you still think you would win in small claims then why not use the links above and speak to a attorney if you do not have one ?

 

[954Rental]

You changed the locks during time the tenant had paid for, that means you denied the tenant the chance to finish using time they paid for because that tenant could have come back for all you know and slept in a sleeping bag on the floor using a flash light if they needed for one night, after all they paid for it. If you had not changed the locks then I would feel other wise so DO you really think the courts in the pro tenant state of CA would agree with you and tell you that you owe nothing to the tenant ? ( hint speak to your atty about a lease that defines abandonment & including wording that addresses the disconnection of utilities???) If you still think you would win in small claims then why not use the links above and speak to a attorney if you do not have one ?

If the tenant returned the keys how was he expecting to get back into his apartment? If he wanted to get back in he should have said he kept and extra key, tried to get in, say he needs to get in and ask for a copy of the keys to the new lock.

 

[quincy]

If the tenant left the key and garage door opener on the counter inside the apartment, he did not turn in the key.

The lock should not have been changed until the lease expired. The tenant had the right to return to the apartment and use it for all of the days he paid for the rental. Many tenants will clear out their belongings and then return to clean the apartment.

Whether the tenant was a jerk about the open house days or not, kookadala, you owe him for the days he was unable to access the unit due to the premature lock-change. I agree with Zigner and FarmerJ.

 

[Zigner]

If the tenant returned the keys how was he expecting to get back into his apartment? If he wanted to get back in he should have said he kept and extra key, tried to get in, say he needs to get in and ask for a copy of the keys to the new lock.

The OP acknowledges that the key on the counter was NOT the only key the tenant had. The fact that the tenant returned to the unit and tried to re-enter is proof that the he hadn't vacated the unit by the time the OP changed the locks.

ETA: As pointed out previously, the key was not "returned" - it was retrieved by the OP based on the (now known to be mistaken) belief that the OP had vacated the unit.