If landlord did not do a pre-inspection, do I have to show that damage was present before I moved in?

[jamesnobles]

The contract is not invalidated, but the the law invalidates any clause that requires any of the deposit to be non-refundable. Like I said, if they only keep the $200, then you have to make a business decision about whether it's worth your time/inconvenience to sue for it. Personally, I'd cut my losses at the $200 in that situation. Not because I'm wrong, but because I can see that the costs outweigh the benefits (for me).

Thanks for your advice and time. I think I will be super cautious going forward to review every thing I sign. It amazes me how the last 2 or 3 landlords I have had always attempt to get over on the tenant by using some illegal clause. I have seen this mention of non refunable deposit before.

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks for your advice and time. I think I will be super cautious going forward to review every thing I sign. It amazes me how the last 2 or 3 landlords I have had always attempt to get over on the tenant by using some illegal clause. I have seen this mention of non refunable deposit before.

Before you commit to a lease, google the name of the landlord/name of complex and see what former tenants have to report about the landlord.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for your advice and time. I think I will be super cautious going forward to review every thing I sign. It amazes me how the last 2 or 3 landlords I have had always attempt to get over on the tenant by using some illegal clause. I have seen this mention of non refunable deposit before.

Frankly, some landlords (particularly those who just rent out a room in their house) may not be aware that such a clause is illegal.

 

[FarmerJ]

James if you send a written on real paper notice to them to confirm remind them your moving at the end of the lease term do it via confirmed mail delivery , the pictures of damages you discovered as you moved in print them. AS to your unit clean it real good and take pictures of how nice and clean it is and print them and use them in court should you have to sue for unfairly held amounts. Last to add on to Zigners comment Even if its a landlord who just rents a room / space out of their home courts tend to not differentiate between larger professional landlords and so called small fry that just rent a room or a so called inlaw apt or a portion of a multi unit they also live in , simply because being a landlord is considered to be a business then the courts expect the LL to know exactly what the laws are related to renting that space out.

 

[Zigner]

Last to add on to Zigners comment Even if its a landlord who just rents a room / space out of their home courts tend to not differentiate between larger professional landlords and so called small fry that just rent a room or a so called inlaw apt or a portion of a multi unit they also live in , simply because being a landlord is considered to be a business then the courts expect the LL to know exactly what the laws are related to renting that space out.

I totally agree. I was simply pointing that the inclusion of a "non-refundable deposit" clause doesn't necessarily point to nefarious purposes behind such a clause, rather, it could truly be that the LL wasn't aware. That doesn't mean it's legal, it just means that the LL might not be such a bad person just because they unwittingly included a prohibited clause.

 

[zddoodah]

can the landlord state that the pre-existing carpet stains were caused by me? Is it my word against his?

Yes and yes.

Which side does the law default to when it is his word over mine.

In any lawsuit, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proof. If it truly is only your word against that of your landlord, and if the court finds you both to be credible, then the plaintiff should lose.

I do believe that the contract is not valid being it states the matter of the deposit and it conflicts with county/state law but I would prefer to see this in writing someplace. I wonder if me signing it makes my case un-winable.

The contract is valid, but the provision for non-refundable deposit isn't. The relevant law is Civil Code section 1950.5(m).

 

[jamesnobles]

Yes and yes.




In any lawsuit, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proof. If it truly is only your word against that of your landlord, and if the court finds you both to be credible, then the plaintiff should lose.




The contract is valid, but the provision for non-refundable deposit isn't. The relevant law is Civil Code section 1950.5(m).

I suppose the credibility of the landlord tenent matters as to whether the move in procedures were followed. I think the law outlines a move in/out inspection. If these were not performed because the landlord did not desire to do them then would it not be a loss in credibility for the landlord? In other words, is it my fault the landlord did not want to inspect and document with me the pre-existing damages?

 

[jamesnobles]

Can a person sue for financial damages in small claims court related to noise disturbances?

Lets assume the plaintiff has already notified in writing that the vehicle noise bothers them and the defendant persists. The plantiff is paying a lot of money for the apartment and cannot relax without relief from the noise. The plaintiff will moveout once the lease is up.

 

[Zigner]

I suppose the credibility of the landlord tenent matters as to whether the move in procedures were followed. I think the law outlines a move in/out inspection. If these were not performed because the landlord did not desire to do them then would it not be a loss in credibility for the landlord? In other words, is it my fault the landlord did not want to inspect and document with me the pre-existing damages?

The law does not require a move-in inspection.

 

[Zigner]

Can a person sue for financial damages in small claims court related to noise disturbances?

Lets assume the plaintiff has already notified in writing that the vehicle noise bothers them and the defendant persists. The plantiff is paying a lot of money for the apartment and cannot relax without relief from the noise. The plaintiff will moveout once the lease is up.

What damages?

 

[jamesnobles]

What damages?

Maybe this is a case of me not wording this properly. I read on Nolo that the plaintiff can request in court a refund of some about of money per day due to their complaint.

 

[Zigner]

Maybe this is a case of me not wording this properly. I read on Nolo that the plaintiff can request in court a refund of some about of money per day due to their complaint.

What proof do you have that the running of a vehicle has caused you so much harm that you should be entitled to a refund of a portion of the rent you have paid?

 

[Zigner]

I have to be honest with you. If I were in your shoes, I'd bide my time until the lease was up and then I'd move and never look back. You think you have stress now? Wait until you have to rehash this over and over again in court, as well as having to listen to the other side list all your faults, etc.

Move on.

 

[zddoodah]

I suppose the credibility of the landlord tenent matters as to whether the move in procedures were followed. I think the law outlines a move in/out inspection.

I'll start with the second sentence: California law says nothing about a move-in inspection. Civil Code section 1950.5(f) provides that, "[w]ithin a reasonable time after notification of either party’s intention to terminate the tenancy, or before the end of the lease term, the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of the tenant’s option to request an initial inspection and of the tenant’s right to be present at the inspection."

Unfortunately, it does not say what happens if the landlord fails to give such notification. It's possible that courts have held that failure to give notification means the landlord cannot deduct from the deposit for damages that could have been fixed. One would need to do some case research on that issue, although it's possible that some law firms have published articles on the subject (which could be easily found by googling).

As for the first sentence, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the landlord not doing a move-in inspection won't have squat to do with his/her credibility in court.

is it my fault the landlord did not want to inspect and document with me the pre-existing damages?

Of course not, but that's beside the point, and you obviously didn't need your landlord to be involved in order for you to document the condition of the premises when you moved in.

Can a person sue for financial damages in small claims court related to noise disturbances?

Yes.

Lets assume the plaintiff has already notified in writing that the vehicle noise bothers them and the defendant persists. The plantiff is paying a lot of money for the apartment and cannot relax without relief from the noise. The plaintiff will moveout once the lease is up.

Who is the defendant in this hypothetical lawsuit?

 

[jamesnobles]

I'll start with the second sentence: California law says nothing about a move-in inspection. Civil Code section 1950.5(f) provides that, "[w]ithin a reasonable time after notification of either party’s intention to terminate the tenancy, or before the end of the lease term, the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of the tenant’s option to request an initial inspection and of the tenant’s right to be present at the inspection."

Unfortunately, it does not say what happens if the landlord fails to give such notification. It's possible that courts have held that failure to give notification means the landlord cannot deduct from the deposit for damages that could have been fixed. One would need to do some case research on that issue, although it's possible that some law firms have published articles on the subject (which could be easily found by googling).

As for the first sentence, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the landlord not doing a move-in inspection won't have squat to do with his/her credibility in court.




Of course not, but that's beside the point, and you obviously didn't need your landlord to be involved in order for you to document the condition of the premises when you moved in.


Yes.


Who is the defendant in this hypothetical lawsuit?

Thanks for the clarification. I am starting to realize that all this matter regading noise damages is to complicated to handle. All I want is peace and quiet in the home otherwise I feel like I am throwing away the $5400 I will have spent for three months of living in this tiny studio. I know personal matters like what I just said probably do not matter in a court of law.

As for the matter of the deposit. I have not brought up the matter with them yet. I will soon just tell them what I discovered regarding the law stating the deposit might be refundable and request that they refund the amount if no damages are found. I am nervous that he will become resentful and try to blame things on me which I did not cause. He told me upon moving in that the deposit was for a deep clean which he performs upon me moving out but I beg to differ with him as I found many a unclean areas when I moved in. I should have brought them up right away but at the time I did not want to sue him as I did not know what the law was.

I am the plaintiff in the hypothetical lawsuit I proposed.