Security Deposit Issue in California

[Searchertwin]

In my research, you're the first person who has seemed to claim that the age of the paint may not matter.

I stated:
"The age of paint does and doesn't play a role in how long one lives there."

If you would put your thinking cap on, you would understand that sometimes the age of paint does not matter. Let me recite something I said in my post.
I said, "Due to excessive smoking, had to repaint the place again."

This is consider DAMAGE, not wear and tear. I painted the place before you moved in. You could have stayed only a week. You were a heavy smoker.
How do you think the walls look like when all the pictures you hung were taken down? How about the yellow stains left behind?

You draw your own conclusion on other ways that age of paint does not matter in some situations.

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.

No, common sense, or the LL would not have indicated it.
Remember, what is clean to you is not to me.

As I advise, take LL to court

 

[Unthought_Known]

I agree that paint might need to be replaced before two years. An apartment might require a fresh coat of paint the very next day, depending on how you treated it. My confusion arises because I just don't see what that has to do with my situation. I'm not asking if a landlord can re-paint an apartment within 2 years (obviously he can). My question was whether a tenant is responsible for the painting costs, if the paint is a few years old by the time it's replaced. In my research (and in what I've read here) it looks like the tenant is not responsible if the paint is over two years old (in California).

 

[Who's Liable?]

I agree that paint might need to be replaced before two years. An apartment might require a fresh coat of paint the very next day, depending on how you treated it. My confusion arises because I just don't see what that has to do with my situation. I'm not asking if a landlord can re-paint an apartment within 2 years (obviously he can). My question was whether a tenant is responsible for the painting costs, if the paint is a few years old by the time it's replaced. In my research (and in what I've read here) it looks like the tenant is not responsible if the paint is over two years old (in California).

IGNORE searchertwin, they have been consistently informed they are wrong on MANY topics here, including depreciated values.

You are correct in your thinking.

 

[Searchertwin]

IGNORE searchertwin, they have been consistently informed they are wrong on MANY topics here, including depreciated values.

You are correct in your thinking.

No, she is not. I did not say anything about depreciating. I stated, if the walls needed painted due to damage, she will be held liable.

You have also been wrong and been corrected. You are not unique.

Now, if damage doesn't count, than why should a tenant put up money for a security deposit? You don't make sense again.

You must have had a lot of trouble renting.

Take Care

 

[Unthought_Known]

I heard back from the landlord today, and there was no check included. Here's his reasoning, and my current response. Any advice is encouraged!

Painting: He said that the useful life is 2 years, but he painted it right before we moved in (so it 1-2 months shy of 2 years). When he said it was painted before we moved in, he wrote "just as all of my apartments are painted before I rent".

I have 2 problems: 1, it was not painted. I'll have to reiterate that to him. We moved in a couple hours after the prior tenant moved out, and there wasn't any time for him to paint. But the second problem is that, if he paints every apartment before renting it out, then it should not be my responsibility to pay for it. He didn't paint because of spackle marks - he painted because he claims he always paints. I remember reading that they should not charge for things they routinely do - I'll have to search for where I read that.

Floor damage: He said that he does not have to pro-rate the costs (and can therefore pass the entire cost to us) because it was 'damage' and not 'wear and tear'. This doesn't make sense to me. If it was wear and tear, there wouldn't be any charge to us. Since this is damage, it should be pro-rated. Is there any way for him to legally justify having me buy him a new floor, rather than pro-rating based on useful/depreciable life?

Cleaning: He says that I am responsible for cleaning the outside of the windows (I was not on the ground level, by the way). According to his letter, the windows can be removed from inside of the unit, so a ladder is not needed. I'm baffled with this, as I've never heard of a landlord that required a tenant to remove the windows to clean the outside of them. And if that's the case, he could have at least let us know ahead of time - I'd have to think that virtually no tenant would take out the windows to clean the outside. The part that irks me the most is that I gave him 3 1/2 days to let me know if anything wasn't clean enough, and he didn't let me know. According to Cal Civ Code sec 1950.5(f)(1), the landlord must give me notice of my rights to an inspection (he didn't do this), and he must allow me to fix any problems (the exact words are: the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleaning that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions....The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies..to avoid deductions from the security). If he told me about the windows and I didn't fix it, that's on me. By keeping that to himself until I turned in the keys - even though he went through the unit after it was cleaned, but before I turned in the keys - that's just dishonest.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Not to belabor the obvious, but your options were spelled out already (https://forum.freeadvice.com/landlord-tenant-issues-42/security-deposit-issue-california-582244.html#post3078999) and this latest volley between you and the LL changes nothing (other than adding delay).

Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

I have to agree with you are guilty but to hit a couple spots that you brought up:


the painting: argue or not, it's up to you. Most available to LL is 1/12 of cost

flooring: he is 100% wrong. The fact is, he cannot charge for normal wear and tear, period. The only way he can charge you anything is if it is excessive wear and tear or damage. That must be prorated.

According to his letter, the windows can be removed from inside of the unit, so a ladder is not needed. I'm baffled with this, as I've never heard of a landlord that required a tenant to remove the windows to clean the outside of them

Yo wouldn't be removing the windows. If I understand the LL correctly, the windows are meant to swing in so as to be able to clean them from the inside.



to the timeline for pre-inspection: not going to chase the specifics. You can demand one. If you didn't demand it properly, that is on you. (not suggesting this was the case, just general info). If you did demand one, there are remedies in the law. I believe that has all been addressed before.



So, as my mom used to say; poop or get off the pot. Nobody's going to wipe your butt for you.

 

[Unthought_Known]

You Are Guilty,

Yes, I was hoping it was obvious too. I just wanted to make sure the rationale behind his response will not doom me. Much of what he lists is a real stretch to me, and I didn't want to find out that my initial research (i.e. what I sent in my original letter) was wrong.

Layman,

With the windows, they do not swing in. I've seen windows you're talking about (many have the handle that you turn in circles to swing them in or out), but this is not them. They are sliding (left to right) windows from the 70's. It's hard to describe, but he was saying that I should have known to take them completely out of the frame and clean them inside the unit.


One thing I forgot to mention: He said that the court cannot award a bad faith penalty because he sent part of the deposit within 21 days. Is this true? From what I read, the bad faith penalty is not limited to the 21 days - it's applicable in any case where he acts in bad faith.

 

[justalayman]

With the windows, they do not swing in. I've seen windows you're talking about (many have the handle that you turn in circles to swing them in or out), but this is not them. They are sliding (left to right) windows from the 70's. It's hard to describe, but he was saying that I should have known to take them completely out of the frame and clean them inside the unit.

gotcha

One thing I forgot to mention: He said that the court cannot award a bad faith penalty because he sent part of the deposit within 21 days. Is this true? From what I read, the bad faith penalty is not limited to the 21 days - it's applicable in any case where he acts in bad faith.

there is a difference between being wrong and acting in bad faith.

from a California publication:

Under California law, 21 calendar days or less after you move, your landlord must either:

Send you a full refund of your security deposit, or
Mail or personally deliver to you an itemized statement that lists the amounts of any deductions from your security deposit and the reasons for the deductions, together with a refund of any amounts not deducted

If he sent you what he believed was a proper refund, that is not acting in bad faith, even if it was not the legally determined amount.

there is more here:

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

 

[Unthought_Known]

If he sent you what he believed was a proper refund, that is not acting in bad faith, even if it was not the legally determined amount.

Thanks for the help (you, and everybody else)! As for bad faith, I'll put it in my suit and let the judge decide. My rationale is that he is not giving me what he believed to be a proper refund. He's been a landlord since before I was born (I'm 32) and he owns over 100 individual apartment units - it's reasonable to expect him to know that he should be prorating damage, should give tenants written notice of their right to an inspection, etc. In my apartment before this, my landlord was renting out his future retirement home and had no landlord experience. I didn't expect him to know the ins and outs of the laws/guidelines. I expect more from this guy though, and I feel like he's trying to improperly use my security deposit to update his older apartment.

 

[justalayman]

As for bad faith, I'll put it in my suit and let the judge decide. My rationale is that he is not giving me what he believed to be a proper refund. t.

good idea. good luck.

 

[Unthought_Known]

The only way he can charge you anything is if it is excessive wear and tear or damage. That must be prorated.

Quick question to you (or anyone else): Where is this documented? I see people say this all the time (I've found dozens of posts on this site and across the internet about it, including from lawyers). However, the California Tenants/Landlords guide is not very specific. My landlord is saying that the Tenant/Landlord guide only mentions prorating for Carpets and Drapes, and that he doesn't have to pro-rate since it makes no mention of vinyl flooring. I'm confident that a judge would disagree, but wasn't sure if there was actual documentation of the proration guideline beyond carpets/drapes. The actual wording (page 59) is "carpets, drapes and other furnishings" so I'm assuming this falls under 'other furnishings'.

As for an update from my end, I've printed out the small claims forms and I'll be submitting them shortly. My only concern now is serving the papers. The website says that certified mail with return receipt is only effective about half of the time. If he decides not to sign for it, then I'd have to hire a process server which can cost over a hundred bucks with no guarantee of success. It seems like an easy way to get out of a small claims suit - don't sign return receipts, and don't answer the door for strangers, and eventually the claimant will give up.

 

[justalayman]

(e) The landlord may claim of the security only those amounts as
are reasonably necessary for the purposes specified in subdivision
(b). The landlord may not assert a claim against the tenant or the
security for damages to the premises or any defective conditions that
preexisted the tenancy, for ordinary wear and tear or the effects
thereof, whether the wear and tear preexisted the tenancy or occurred
during the tenancy, or for the cumulative effects of ordinary wear
and tear occurring during any one or more tenancies.

cal civ code 1950.5(e)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1



while it doesn't say it must be prorated in that exact term, it does say that the LL cannot claim for wear and tear that was cumulative of ordinary wear and tear occurring during any one or more than one tenancy. That means they can only charge for the remaining value of any item. That would be the prorated value of the item.

So, not only does it include drapes, carpet, and vinyl flooring, it actually includes EVERYTHING that has a depreciating value.

 

[Unthought_Known]

That's a good point. If a floor is 7 years old, then it had normal wear and tear during those 7 years leading up to the point in which it was damaged. He can't charge for those 7 years worth of wear and tear; he can only charge for the damage from that point forward.

It's just too bad the law doesn't use the word 'prorate'....that would've made it much easier!

 

[justalayman]

Unthought_Known;3093044]That's a good point. If a floor is 7 years old, then it had normal wear and tear during those 7 years leading up to the point in which it was damaged. He can't charge for those 7 years worth of wear and tear; he can only charge for the damage from that point forward.

bingo

It's just too bad the law doesn't use the word 'prorate'....that would've made it much easier!

then what would we do with all of the lawyers we have? A pile of bodies that big would be an extreme bio-hazard.