Deposit Reimbursement

[rhh]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

The facts...

Paid the landlord a deposit of $1,500 in two payments of $750.00. The first payment prior to moving in and the balance following paycheck. After three years moved out with notice. No claims etc. by the landlord. Asked for a cash or check on my final day....to no avail. Anyhow... On the 20th day after vacating, the landlord remitted $750.00. When I finally made contact weeks later he said his remittance was in error. Fyi..I had to refresh his memory with the fact I had copies of the checks in hand. The guy clearly was out to screw me, thankfully I kept a copy. CA law states he needed to return the amount within 21 days...can I take him to court based on "bad faith" penalty cliam and spank him for tripple damages?

Thx in advance....

 

[CA LL]

Nope I doubt a judge would find bad faith here..

The landlord in GOOD FAITH to you (a mistake on his part) allowed you to pay only a partial SD before move-in. The document probably reflected only that which was paid at the time. Very innocent mistake caused by him being (too) accomodating to his tenant's wants/needs..a mistake I'll be he never does again.

Your other check will come soon..let it go and be glad he let you pay in two payments..I wouldn't have nor would many LL's I know in CA.

Oh and why did you wait "weeks later" to make contact? When you received it on the 20th day? AND NO LL should remit SD refund at move-out! Not sure why you thought you would be entitled to that??!!

 

[Alaska landlord]

Your attitude of entitlement and lack of appreciation is the reason most landlords don't go out of their way to do an applicant any favors. The man broke his own rules and took a chance on you not paying the full deposit. He made no deductions for damages, though I doubt that to be the case. What what does he get for his good will?
You want to stick him for 3x the SD.

Wait for the rest of the deposit and thank the man.

 

[rhh]

Too detail a little further.....

When I moved into the townhouse, it had just gone through a major remodel. The deferal of the 2nd half of the deposit for two weeks was barter for my cleaning the place.

Over three years of being a tentant, I did plumbing, electrical and heating and airconditioning work for materails only. I simply didn't want to bother with dealing with service people. I saved him hundreds! Again, I never once askes for any reimbursement of even gas money, simply materail cost.

I had a landlord who was a "street smart" and clearly was not ethical. I didn't realize this until the latter part of my associations. This came from casual conversations we had.

I had hoped that my being a good tennant would persuade him to give me cash and/or a check on my last day. I had good reason to not trust him.

Again, I am convinced that if I had not kept a copy of the second $750 check that I would be out $750. He simply knew what he was doing; it was calculated on his part.

So, selective amnesia is tolerated by law? California says you have 21 days...he did not comply!

 

[rhh]

Too detail a little further.....

When I moved into the townhouse, it had just gone through a major remodel. The deferal of the 2nd half of the deposit for two weeks was barter for my cleaning the place.

Over three years of being a tentant, I did plumbing, electrical and heating and airconditioning work for materails only. I simply didn't want to bother with dealing with service people. I saved him hundreds! Again, I never once askes for any reimbursement of even gas money, simply materail cost.

I had a landlord who was a "street smart" and clearly was not ethical. I didn't realize this until the latter part of my associations. This came from casual conversations we had.

I had hoped that my being a good tennant would persuade him to give me cash and/or a check on my last day. I had good reason to not trust him.

Again, I am convinced that if I had not kept a copy of the second $750 check that I would be out $750. He simply knew what he was doing; it was calculated on his part.

So, selective amnesia is tolerated by law? California says you have 21 days...he did not comply![/QUOTE]

 

[rhh]

my error...

fist $750 was paid on the 2oth day after I vacated...the second $750 came weeks later....

sorry for any confussion.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Do you realize that working on the apartment without your landlords consent could have resulted in his having to re-do the entire work at your expense? Even when consent is granted you should get written permission. Being street smart is not a crime last time I checked, and a judge could easily see where there might be confusion based on his allowing you to delay full payment of the deposit. If you need money this is not the way to go about it.

 

[rhh]

Why would you assume I did NOT have the landlord's consent? I did, he was the recepient of my free labor..I was a nice guy ..in the end he tried to screw me.

Why not simply state the law has no meat!

I'm not after the money...I'd like to spank the jerk...isn't that how the courts make peolple apologize for their mistakes?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

isn't that how the courts make peolple apologize for their mistakes?

Nope.

Criminal court is designed to punish. Not civil court.

 

[rhh]

Per CDCA

If the landlord does NOT return your security deposit as required by law (21 days), you can file a lawsuit in small claims court. You can collect the amount of the deposit with interest and penalty up to $7,500. If you prove (in small claims) that the landlord acted in bad faith you can collect (in samll claims) twice the amount of the deposit.

 

[CA LL]

I am QUITE familiar with CA law and actual case law as well..and answered your question accordingly.

The other discussion has nothing to do with any of this..you CHOSE to do work because you did not want to deal with service people you said...and it has absolutely not bearing on the SD issue...it would NOT be found to be bad faith.

 

[ecmst12]

If you've already gotten all your money back before filing suit, don't expect a judge to grant you anything more. You've been made whole and I don't see where you can prove bad faith to the extent that you deserve more money then you paid out.

 

[rhh]

Wow...

CA LL

My conversation has nothing to do with the free work!

The "bad faith" is that he did NOT pay me the full amount in the 21 day period! His intention was clearly to screw me out of the money until I tracked him down ... and brought to his attention that I had canceled checks totaling $1,500. Remember, he remitted $750 on the 20th day and the balance took weeks, why, because he wouldn't return phone calls. Why? He thought I would go away., because I am now out of California. If I had known what his ethics were all about, I would never have been a nice guy and done the work for free. Beware of landlord's from Richmond!

The point is...he did NOT make me whole in the 21 days as called for by statue.

The message to renters in California is...the 21 days, while law...really means nothing...based on the landlord's execuse of simply forgetting to act timely and in full.

 

[CA LL]

Wow is right. You had a rare landlord who allowed you to pay in payments...( dumb on his part ) to help YOU out, allowed you to do work you WANTED to do because you didn't want to deal with service people (usually a large red flag and most LL's would say goodbye right then). This would EASILY be no chance of a finding of bad faith. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Seems you will keep posting until you find someone that says it will be found to be bad faith. It will not but hey feel free to take this guy who did you a favor to court. Again, you CHOSE to do the work and that has nothing to do with the SD question you posted about..if you bring that up in court a judge would say the same thing. You got a full refund. From a guy who let you pay it in two payments. Yep..bad faith ha ha.

 

[CA LL]

FYI..the statute DOES mean a lot..and TRUE bad faith cases (which are quite obvious - NO REFUND, MONTHS of trying to contact LL, pics of evidence on the tenant's part of the condition they left the property in, etc) are found to be such. This would not be. If anything your LL would be found to be at too good of faith...letting you pay in payments, letting you do work because you insisted/refused service people and refunding you 100% of the deposit.