Security Deposit Issue in California

[Unthought_Known]

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

I moved out of an apartment recently and saw some deductions that I disagree with. Any advice is appreciated!

1) Painting: I put up some picture frames with nails. Upon moving out, I put some spackle on the walls to cover up the holes. I've done this in a half dozen apartments, but this is the first time I've been charged for it. I was charged for several gallons of paint and several hours of painting time - apparently they re-painted the entire apartment. Landlord referenced a 3-year life of paint in his email, and charged me for 1/3 of the cost (I was there for just under 2 years). My question is, should I be responsible for any of the cost if the paint wasn't new when I moved it? The paint was at least 3 years old (2 years of my tenancy, plus however long before that), so it should need to be re-painted anyway. At the very least, I should be responsible for touch-up paint, not painting the entire apartment.

2) Cleaning: I spoke with the landlord the day the lease ended (after I was done cleaning, etc), but we didn't have an official walkthrough. He mentioned that the kitchen wasn't clean enough, and I was fine with that assessment - I had trouble cleaning some spots. He didn't mention any other issues with cleaning though. When I received my deposit back, he deducted for Windows and Bathroom. I spent a few hours cleaning the apartment, including using Windex on all of the inside windows, scrubbing the toilet/bath, scrubbing the shower walls, vacuuming/mopping the floors. Can I request that he sends me pictures of the dirty areas, or refund my money? If neither of us have pictures, I'm not sure whose responsibility it is to prove it was dirty. I've never had a landlord withhold money because of my lack of cleaning. I didn't clean the outside of the windows, but I assume that's not my responsibility since it wasn't a first floor unit.

3) Flooring: There was a piece of vinyl that came up (about the size of a quarter), and he replaced the floor in the entire room. The bill was $600 and he deducted the entire portion from my deposit. I know that's not acceptable - he can only deduct the depreciable value of the floor, not the entire replacement cost. How do I figure out how old the floor was though, or do I just take his word for it? And how do I find the depreciable life? From what I've seen, IRS guidelines are 5 years, and I'm pretty certain it was at least 5 years old. The floor wasn't new when I moved in, so it's at least 2 years old plus the length of time that the prior tenant lived there. My strategy is to ask for the entire amount back because I assume it's over 5 years, then ask him to send me an installation date if it's less than 5 years.

Thanks!
Benjamin

 

[xylene]

Take him to small claims court for the whole amount.

Make him prove his damages.

Gather evidence about depreciation.

 

[Unthought_Known]

Take him to small claims court for the whole amount.

Make him prove his damages.

Gather evidence about depreciation.

Thanks for the quick response, xylene! I'm definitely willing to go to small claims court. In California, I think I can ask for the amount of unreturned security deposit, plus 2X that amount as damages (plus filing costs, which are minimal). However, my first step is to send him a letter requesting a partial return of the deposit, and I'll itemize the amount I want returned. Before I send the letter though, I wanted to ensure that my understanding of the law is accurate when it comes to the painting, cleaning, and floor repair. For instance, if I say it was clean and he says it wasn't, and neither of us have pictures, who wins? And if I say the floor has a 5-year life (per the IRS) and he says vinyl can last 40 years, how do they decide which is right?

In the event that he doesn't respond to my letter, or responds by saying he won't give me any more of my deposit back, then I'll definitely file a claim in small claim's court.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

"For instance, if I say it's clean and he says it wasn't, and neither of us has pictures, who wins?"

Whomever the court says wins.

Attached is a good, easy to read article regarding security deposit returns in California.


http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

Your landlord does need to provide you receipts. He is not required to show you pictures of the dirty windows.

Gail

 

[Unthought_Known]

"For instance, if I say it's clean and he says it wasn't, and neither of us has pictures, who wins?"

Whomever the court says wins.

Attached is a good, easy to read article regarding security deposit returns in California.


http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

Your landlord does need to provide you receipts. He is not required to show you pictures of the dirty windows.

Gail

He did provide a receipt. Well, he listed the dollar amount and said that his property manager did the cleaning (although he didn't list the time it took). I don't think he needs an official receipt if it's someone that works for him. But the reason I ask about pictures is because I spoke with him the day after giving the keys, I spoke saw the property manager a few days before that and told him to let me know if anything needs cleaning (and he mentioned the stove, but nothing else), and I also left a voicemail before dropping off the keys and said "I'll be dropping off the keys tonight at around 7pm. If you noticed anything wrong with the apartment, please let me know" but I never heard a thing about dirty windows or bathroom. Not until he docked $100+ in cleaning fees for them. He owns a number of buildings and has a property manager on salary - it seems to me like he could just make up whatever he wants with regards to cleaning, and I have no recourse. If I was a dirty person I'd just accept it, but my wife and I spent hours cleaning up the place, and our 8 prior landlords never had a problem with our cleaning ability.

Actually, I just remembered one more thing that I wasn't sure about. After I send him a letter (and when we go to Small Claim's court, if it gets to that), is he allowed to come up with new things to charge me for? For instance, can he say "by the way, I forgot to charge you for cleaning the bedroom so that's another $100 - and I had to refinish the hardwood floors, so that came to $300". Or is he only able to charge me for what's listed on his original report, since we're past the 21 day deadline in California?

 

[llord]

If he can convince the court that the additional charges are for things that

weren't apparent right away he may be able to convince the judge that you owe damages. For things that should have been apparent right away the landlord will have a harder time showing evidence why it was overlooked till later if it was there at move-out. Ultimately it will be about what you or the former landlord can convince the judge about the damages by presenting evidence.

 

[Searchertwin]

Or is he only able to charge me for what's listed on his original report, since we're past the 21 day deadline in California?

Can he? Yes. It called a counterclaim

 

[mfaust33]

City Renters Protection Units

You should only be worried about the counter-suit if there are legit things that he can also collect on. If there are not, then no worries. Going to small claims court, however, is a pain for this amount of money. Sometimes a good letter from an attorney describing the potential of small claims is good and also reporting them your cities renters right agency. I have done this for a few of my friends and it seems to snap the landlords into negotiating shape

You should also check out if your city has a renters right or protection unit. Landlords are very worried about getting reported to these agencies and they have some real teeth depending on your city. I know LA and SF have some good ones, but not sure where you are asking from. Randomly this came up in an UpCounsel lawyer forum and this was the number one suggestion (granted most of the lawyers in the forum were from the Bay, but a couple LA attorneys chimed in as well).

 

[Unthought_Known]

Thanks for the info, everybody. Yes, I am in the Bay Area. I have actually been in touch with a prior tenant, and she said she had problems with the LL too. She called the moving-out process a 'nightmare', and mentioned that the vinyl floor was not new when she moved in (a few years before me). So I think I have a legitimate claim that he cannot deduct the entire charge from my security deposit. And since the apartment was not freshly painted when I moved in (and I lived there for 22+ months), it should be past its 2-year useful life and I should not incur any painting charges.

 

[Searchertwin]

Thanks for the info, everybody. Yes, I am in the Bay Area. I have actually been in touch with a prior tenant, and she said she had problems with the LL too. She called the moving-out process a 'nightmare', and mentioned that the vinyl floor was not new when she moved in (a few years before me). So I think I have a legitimate claim that he cannot deduct the entire charge from my security deposit. And since the apartment was not freshly painted when I moved in (and I lived there for 22+ months), it should be past its 2-year useful life and I should not incur any painting charges.

Let's start with the floor.
True, that tenant might have stated, that the vinyl floor was not new when she moved in.
But, like me, I have the same vinyl (peel and place), stored that is replaced or pieced, depends on what needs to be done. And yes, I charged for one piece if needed. Exactly what it would cost me.

So, did the LL replace the whole floor with new vinyl? Could have.

Paint.
22 months is less than 24 more. Anyway you look at it, upside down, turn sideways, crossways, etc., it will still be that 22 is less than 24.
Just because you say so, won't make it right.
Pictures speak a thousand words to make it right.

 

[justalayman]

In california's landlord tenant guide (I thing it's the one linked above), they suggest a 2 year life on paint. Unless the paint was new when you moved in (you state it wasn't), they likely have no claim on the painting. If they charged for painting that was not required due to your abuse, that is an overcharge even if there is some life considered to be remaining. They cannot charge for normal wear and tear on paint.


The flooring; if it is sheet vinyl, then you are probably stuck with replacing the entire piece. It too has a depreciation. Haven't checked for what California states as acceptable.


Cleaning; you are only required to return the unit in as it was given to you. As noted above, proving it is difficult. For future reference; take pictures or video of everything when you move into a place and when you leave.

For the specific listing of costs; if they or their own maintenance people do the work, they have to break it down to hours spent and the hourly charge. The hourly charge must be reasonable. If an outside contractor did the work, they must provide you with a copy of the receipt (not a restatement by the LL) of the costs.

If you disagree with the charges, you should first attempt to negotiate with the LL. If that fails, head to small claims court. Include any charges you believe are not proper and let the LL prove them (as somebody already stated).

 

[Unthought_Known]

Justalayman,

I've read the tenants guide about a dozen times by now We moved into the apartment a few hours after the prior tenant moved out (she was in the process of moving out when I got the keys - and I moved in some boxes a few hours later). Not only did the unit not smell like paint, but there simply wasn't enough time to finish moving, clean up the place, then spend 4 hours painting (that's the amount of time listed on the deduction).

For cleaning, they just listed an amount. No hourly rate, no length of time. In my letter I'll ask him to specify that. I'm confident that the bathroom and the interior windows were as clean as when I moved in, although the kitchen/stove weren't as clean (I'm not contesting that part of the cleaning).

As for the floor, I agree that the whole thing has to be replaced sometimes and I'm not really disputing the 'fix one tile' vs. 'replace' aspect of it. I'm disputing the fact that he charged me 100% of the cost. IRS guidelines are 5 years for depreciation, and manufacturers warranty are 5 years on most vinyl (per Home Depot), so I'll use that in my letter to him. The floor was at least 5 years old by the time I left (it wasn't new when I moved in, and the prior tenant said it wasn't new when she move into the apartment in 2008). Regardless of age and useful life though - I haven't found one site that says they can charge 100% of the cost to a tenant.

 

[Unthought_Known]

Let's start with the floor.
True, that tenant might have stated, that the vinyl floor was not new when she moved in.
But, like me, I have the same vinyl (peel and place), stored that is replaced or pieced, depends on what needs to be done. And yes, I charged for one piece if needed. Exactly what it would cost me.

So, did the LL replace the whole floor with new vinyl? Could have.

Paint.
22 months is less than 24 more. Anyway you look at it, upside down, turn sideways, crossways, etc., it will still be that 22 is less than 24.
Just because you say so, won't make it right.
Pictures speak a thousand words to make it right.

Unfortunately, I don't really know what you're trying to say

I lived there 22 months, and the paint was not new when I moved in. So by the time I moved out, it was at least 2 years old (unless they painted during the last month of the prior tenant's stay, but I doubt any tenant would allow that). The useful life is based on the age of the paint, it's not based on how long I lived there.

With the floor, he did replace the whole floor after I left (and he charged me for it). But it was not new when I moved into the place, and it was not new when the last tenant moved into the place. By the time I moved out, it was several years old already.

 

[Searchertwin]

Unfortunately, I don't really know what you're trying to say

Oh, you didn't, did you? Than what was the reply to another poster? You answered, " I'm not really disputing the 'fix one tile' vs. 'replace' aspect of it."

I think you know you owe for the charges and are just really trying not to pay.

The age of paint does and doesn't play a role in how long one lives there. For instance, place was painted before renter moved in. She stayed 6 months. Due to excessive smoking, had to repaint the place again. OR, tenant moved in hung dozens of pictures in every room, teenagers hung poster using tape and staples and small child used wall to color on. Do I need to go on? Now, what really was the condition of your walls?

As for as cleaning, the stove and ref is consider the hardest to clean, that's why you didn't bother to clean. Which tells me that you really didn't put an effort into cleaning as you stated.

Best advice to you. I take him to small claims court.
Take Care

 

[Unthought_Known]

Unfortunately, I don't really know what you're trying to say

Oh, you didn't, did you? Than what was the reply to another poster? You answered, " I'm not really disputing the 'fix one tile' vs. 'replace' aspect of it."

I think you know you owe for the charges and are just really trying not to pay.

The age of paint does and doesn't play a role in how long one lives there. For instance, place was painted before renter moved in. She stayed 6 months. Due to excessive smoking, had to repaint the place again. OR, tenant moved in hung dozens of pictures in every room, teenagers hung poster using tape and staples and small child used wall to color on. Do I need to go on? Now, what really was the condition of your walls?

As for as cleaning, the stove and ref is consider the hardest to clean, that's why you didn't bother to clean. Which tells me that you really didn't put an effort into cleaning as you stated.

Best advice to you. I take him to small claims court.
Take Care

Regarding your first sentence, no, I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. From my original post through my last post, I haven't been claiming that the landlord should only fix one tile. The $600 that he paid for a new floor, I'm not saying he should have been able to fix it for less money. What I was asking is, can a landlord fix the floor for $600 and deduct the entire amount from a security deposit? From everything I've read, a landlord cannot simply deduct the entire replacement cost from a security deposit. It has to be pro-rated based on its remaining life. You say I "know (I) owe for the charges and are just really trying not to pay". That's false. I don't know that I owe him $600. Why should I pay for a brand new kitchen floor when the floor wasn't new while I lived there? If you crash your '04 Accord, does your insurance company buy you a brand new '12 model? Your post was referencing peel and place vinyl, charging for one piece, etc. That's not related to what I'm asking.

As for paint, you mention the place was painted before the renter moved in. If it was (hypothetically) painted 5 years before she moved in, and she stayed 6 months, everything I've read says that she is not responsible for the cost of repainting the unit. Different states might vary, but I'm speaking specifically of California. The useful life has expired, so the place was due for re-painting anyway. (Obviously it would be different if there were major holes in the wall, but I'm just talking about painting and not fixing holes). If it was painted a week before she moved in and was only 6 months old when she moved out, yes she would be responsible for some painting costs. Simply put, the age of the paint at the time of move-out is crucial. In my research, you're the first person who has seemed to claim that the age of the paint may not matter.

I wasn't able to adequately clean the stove (which I admitted to the landlord before I returned the keys), so that means I didn't clean the windows? Wow, great logic.