The contract states that 200 of 900 is non refundable for no reason.
That makes no grammatical sense ("non refundable for no reason"), but California law expressly prohibits any part of a security deposit from being nonrefundable.
Cal. Civil Code section 1950.5(b) and (m).
I would like to leave the unit early and break my lease. Would this argument against hold up in small claims court?
If you're talking about the question asked in the subject header of your lease ("Does the fact that my lease states that part of the deposit is nonrefundable mean that I the contract is null and void?"), the answer to that question is no.
The provision about a portion of your security deposit being nonrefundable would be unenforceable. However, if you vacate and surrender possession of the premises and stop paying rent before the expiration of the lease term, the landlord would be entitled to apply the $900 deposit against damage (in excess of wear and tear), cleaning the unit (if you fail to do so) and unpaid rent. You would be on the hook for the rent through the end of the lease term, less any portion of the deposit not used for cleaning and repairs, and subject to the landlord's obligation to mitigate damages by finding a new tenant. Given current conditions, finding a new tenant could be significantly more difficult than under normal circumstances.
Talk with your landlord about your financial concerns. This is a very common situation, especially right now. Your landlord might work with you to a better mutual resolution than a bre[a]ch.
Agree. Landlords will not be eager to try and replace tenants right now.
It is a in-law unit but I do not think that matters.
It might.
It does not for purposes of the question asked, but why do you think that?
That is a good point but what if it specifies nonrefundable such as when the assumption is before the tenent even moves in that it is non refundable.
Why don't you quote the actual language?
Can anyone else confirm this? My sources seem to show that the entire contract is null but I might be incorrect on this.
Please cite your sources. It is fundamental contract law that, when a provision in a contract is legally unenforceable, that provision is regarded as being excised from the contract, while the remainder of the contract remains in place. The exception to that rule is if the removal of the unenforceable provision makes it effectively impossible for the contract to be performed. This is both codified (
Civil Code section 1599 ("Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest."); and
Civil Code section 1670.5 (relating specifically to unconscionable contract provisions)) and discussed in innumerable published decisions of the California Supreme Court and courts of appeal.
See, e.g., Frame v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 20 Cal. App. 3d 668, 673 (1971) ("It does not follow [from a finding that one contract provision is unenforceable], however, that the entire contract was necessarily unlawful."); see also
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs., 24 Cal. 4th 83, __, 6 P.3d 669, 773-74 (2000). I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think the law is otherwise.
