CA - Cleanliness and Contract Question

[w8n4ufo]

CA - Cleanliness and Contract Questions

I live in California. I would like to know if it is required by law for a landlord to shampoo carpets and paint where needed in between tenants. If there is a law does it apply only to apartments only or does it apply to houses that are rented as well? I am familiar with the California Civil Code sec. 1941.1, would this cover those types of things? I have noticed that when you rent a house from a private party that these things are often neglected. Also, on a separate issue, if the landlord alters your original rental contract without your consent, would this nullify the contract? If not, what effect would it have on it?

 

[LL]

It is not required by law for a landlord to shampoo carpets and paint where needed in between tenants. What do you mean by, where needed? Cosmetic upgrades are not required by law.

1941.1 really means "untenantable" (uninhabitable) not merely unpleasant. I can't see how carpets needing shampoo and walls needing paint would fall under this law (I assume you are looking at (f)). Often, Mom & Pop landlords are not so professional and don't know how to be landlords.

if the landlord alters your original rental contract without your consent, would this nullify the contract?

If it did nullify the contract, then that would mean that if a tenant had a lease and the landlord wanted the tenant out, then he (the landlord) could just alter the contract, the contract would be nullified and the tenant has no more lease.

Hardly, the contract is not nullified, you just have to prove to the judge that your copy is the unaltered version.

 

[w8n4ufo]

Thanks for replying LL. I was just curious about the carpet and paint thing. I am going to court next month with a suit against my former landlord. The former residence was in dire need of paint, not just for cosmetic purposes, but for sanitary reasons. We have many issues with this former landlord. In fact, you replied to a previous post of mine regarding the smoke entering the house. The issue with the altered contract arose after we already moved out. The landlords altered the contract in an attempt to refute some of our claims - basically they neglected to do something that by law they were required to do and altered the original lease contract to try and cover it up. We have a copy of the lease that is unaltered. I was wondering if the alteration of the contract effected the contract in any way. California Civil Code sec. 1700 states that 'the intentional destruction, cancellation, or material alteration of a written contract, by a party entitled to any benefit under it, or with his consent, extinguishes all the executory obligatins of the contract in his favor, against the parties who do not consent to the act.'I am not quite sure how to interpret that with respect to a lease agreement.

 

[LL]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a small claims judge to wipe out all of your obligations to the landlord, no matter what that section says.

If you can prove that yours is the unaltered version, then the judge will go by that. He may even be angry with the altering party if he believes that they deliberately tried to alter the contract, but don't expect that he will wipe out all obligations including those unrelated to the altering.