Can a LL deduct from Security Deposit after the fact?

[Unthought_Known]

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

A landlord sends a letter to his former tenant with Security Deposit deductions. In the letter he mentions some damage, and states that there is no deduction because he will not be replacing/fixing the item (it's more of cosmetic damage and not functional damage). Can he change his mind in the future, then come after the former tenant for damages, or does he give up his ability to charge for it after 21 days? If he can change his mind, when does the statute of limitations end? (I assume he can't come back 5 years down the road, for instance).

From what I know, he can deduct for items past 21 days if the damage wasn't clear that fast. But I can't find anything that mentions whether they can deduct after 21 days for items that are listed in the original statement, but not originally deducted.

 

[sandyclaus]

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

A landlord sends a letter to his former tenant with Security Deposit deductions. In the letter he mentions some damage, and states that there is no deduction because he will not be replacing/fixing the item (it's more of cosmetic damage and not functional damage). Can he change his mind in the future, then come after the former tenant for damages, or does he give up his ability to charge for it after 21 days? If he can change his mind, when does the statute of limitations end? (I assume he can't come back 5 years down the road, for instance).

From what I know, he can deduct for items past 21 days if the damage wasn't clear that fast. But I can't find anything that mentions whether they can deduct after 21 days for items that are listed in the original statement, but not originally deducted.

In California, the LL must account for the full security deposit, along with an itemized statement of deductions and a refund of any unused portion, withint he 21 day window. California law also allows for a reasonable estimate of damages where the actual costs cannot be determined at the time of the accounting.

Did the tenant already receive the itemized list and refund of unused security deposit funds? Is the LL now coming back and asking for some of it back to cover the cost of replacing/fixing the item(s) in question? Or did the LL not return any portion of the security deposit, and is now revising his itemized deductions after the 21-day timeframe in order to somehow use up the remaining deposit to justify NOT returning it?

 

[Unthought_Known]

I posted a few weeks ago about an issue I had with my former landlord. In a nutshell, he returned less than half of my deposit, and I disagreed with most of his deductions. In his letter, he also mentioned that the countertop had a discoloration (he mentioned it might be a burn mark, but we never put anything that would cause it to burn). He said there is no deduction for the countertop because it will not be replaced.

Early last week I mailed him a letter asking for more money back, and went one-by-one through all of his deductions, listing the reason I disagreed with the dollar amount. I gave him 2 weeks to respond, and I assume he won't ignore me (it would look bad in small claims court if he ignored me, and that might make it more likely that the judge would grant a 'bad faith' penalty).

I'm just trying to cover my bases here, thinking he might try to mention in his letter that he now plans on replacing the countertop and he will sue me for the expense. I doubt he'd actually get a new countertop - there's a new tenant there, and most tenants wouldn't want their kitchen to be out of commission for a job like this, unless it was truly necessary - but I'm just trying to see if he can legally come after me for this. We moved out over a month ago, so the 21 days are up - but since it was mentioned in the original letter, I don't know if he has free reign to charge me at any point in the future.

 

[Who's Liable?]

I posted a few weeks ago about an issue I had with my former landlord.

You should keep all your questions, updates in the original post. It causes less clutter on the forum.

I'm just trying to cover my bases here, thinking he might try to mention in his letter that he now plans on replacing the countertop and he will sue me for the expense. I doubt he'd actually get a new countertop - there's a new tenant there, and most tenants wouldn't want their kitchen to be out of commission for a job like this, unless it was truly necessary - but I'm just trying to see if he can legally come after me for this. We moved out over a month ago, so the 21 days are up - but since it was mentioned in the original letter, I don't know if he has free reign to charge me at any point in the future.

If there is a tenant currently residing in the rental, your former LL would have a very hard time explaining to the judge WHY he is allowed to now charge you for the replacement. In essence, the moment they moved in the new tenant, they relinquished all rights to sue you for any supposed damage, because now, how is a judge to determine if the supposed damage was from you or the new tenants?

As for the SD, they relinquish all rights to it, and you can sue them for up to 3X(depending on your state) the SD amount. However, that doesn't mean that they can't sue you after for damages, they just can't deduct it from your SD. As stated above, they have a very STEEP uphill battle with the judge.

 

[justalayman]

according to this publication:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/catenant.pdf

the landlord can effectively make a claim for additional damages, even after the 21 day period. It boils down to; if he does not refund what you believe should be refunded and sue, he can make a counterclaim.

You both get to tell the judge your story. They decide who is owed what.