Needing a little guidance

[ibnatasha2u]

If the same type of carpeting is used throughout the rental, you probably will need to match it if you hope to get your security deposit back. I would look to professional carpet cleaning before investing in replacement carpet.

This rental is an older house, built 1949, and is going to be torn down. There is carpet in the bedrooms only and none are the same.
If it needs replacing, I was going to use a roll of carpeting that was from a remodel my husband helped on. Its clean and in good shape (nicer than what is in the other rooms now).

 

[ibnatasha2u]

I want to thank you all for your help and suggestions. I have tried to get the former room mate to come clean the room with no luck. I sent texts, called and left voice messages, and emails to both him and his boss's email. So we started the clean up ourselves.
Taking plenty of pictures and video as we go.
I will post updates. I'm sure I will have more questions later.

 

[quincy]

This rental is an older house, built 1949, and is going to be torn down. There is carpet in the bedrooms only and none are the same.
If it needs replacing, I was going to use a roll of carpeting that was from a remodel my husband helped on. Its clean and in good shape (nicer than what is in the other rooms now).

Thanks for answering my questions, ibnatasha2u.

The problem with replacing the carpet is that any changes made to the rental need to be approved first by the property owner/landlord - even if the changes are ones that (arguably) improve the condition of the property. This goes for a change in paint colors, lighting fixtures, and window treatments, too.

I would first try to clean the carpet and then, if cleaning alone is not enough, you can ask the owner/landlord if you can replace the carpet with carpet you have on hand. Without permission, you could have the original carpet damage deducted from your security deposit even if the room is recarpeted.

Of course, you can add any deductions from your security deposit that are directly related to damage caused by your roommate to any lawsuit you file against the roommate.

We are always interested in updates. Good luck.

 

[ibnatasha2u]

Thank you quincy

 

[Litigator22]

I was looking at the roommate being responsible for damage caused to property entrusted to the care of ibnatasha2u. ibnatasha2u has a security deposit at stake if the property is not returned to the landlord in the same condition it was in when rented, minus normal wear and tear.

RCW 59.18.130: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.130

Perhaps seemingly so, but only ostensibly so as your layman's reasoning ignores and fails to treat with the following unassailable facts:

1. That the primary purpose of the standardized rule of law (federal and all state courts alike) demanding that all actions must be brought in the name of the real party interest is the avoidance of multiple lawsuits over the same subject matter and affecting the same parties.

2. That here the owner of the rental unit has a meritorious cause of action seeking reparation against any and all persons (lawful tenants or otherwise) responsible for any unwarranted damage to the property (e. g., walls and carpeting).

3. That no actions, legal processes, agreements, waivers, releases, etc., etc., pursued and/or brought about independently by the tenants in possession of the affected rental unit can defeat or in anyway diminished the owner's said cause of action.

The consequence being that if the OP were to sue the former occupant seeking reparations for the cost of repainting walls and replacing carpet as you propose, the latter would have an absolute defense based upon noncompliance with the standard rule, unless the property owner were to be joined as party claimant.
__________________

A logic extension of your postulation would enable one to whom you lent your automobile to sue the person that stole it because of the remote possibility that the borrower could be held liable to you because he left it running and unattended in front of the liquor store.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The consequence being that if the OP were to sue the former occupant seeking reparations for the cost of repainting walls and replacing carpet as you propose, the latter would have an absolute defense based upon noncompliance with the standard rule, unless the property owner were to be joined as party claimant.

I disagree, with all due respect, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post, which you have not addressed.

A logic extension of your postulation would enable one to whom you lent your automobile to sue the person that stole it because of the remote possibility that the borrower could be held liable to you because he left it running and unattended in front of the liquor store.

Not a good comparison as the person to whom the car was lent doesn't have a contract with the thief. Here the roommate and OP may well have a contract, and that makes it a much different situation than this.

 

[Litigator22]

I disagree, with all due respect, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post, which you have not addressed.

To be real honest, I am somewhat thankful that you do disagree. The truth being that I wouldn't relish being found in league with someone who quizzically proposes that an owner cannot hold a person liable for damage to his property unless there is an existing contractual relationship affording PRIVITY! * (A proposition that were it so would be a boon to all would-be trespassers, squatters and thieves.)

[*] TM: "The landlord lacks the privity to hold the roommate (accountable) . . . "

Not a good comparison as the person to whom the car was lent doesn't have a contract with the thief. Here the roommate and OP may well have a contract, and that makes it a much different situation than this.

Sorry you don't grasp the analogy.

Anyway I m headed to the golf course. That being the normal venue for a sport which in my case is like being in love with a beautiful woman that wretches at that very sight of you.

 

[quincy]

Thank you quincy

You’re welcome, ibnatasha2u. Wishing you luck.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Anyway I m headed to the golf course. That being the normal venue for a sport which in my case is like being in love with a beautiful woman that wretches at that very sight of you.

We missed you, LitBoy.

Better luck in love than in sport.

 

[quincy]

We missed you, LitBoy.

Better luck in love than in sport.

We?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Sorry you don't grasp the analogy.

I grasp the analogy just fine. The problem is that the analogy is not one that really correlates with the situation that the OP has. I'm sorry if you can't see that after my explanation for why that is.

 

[LdiJ]

I am interested in one issue that no one has addressed. The OP said in post 16 that the house is going to be torn down. Can the landlord, legally, keep any amount of security deposit on a house that is about to be torn down, even if damages were done? Logically, the landlord wouldn't be out anything because the house is being torn own rather than re-rented to someone else. I realize that logic doesn't necessarily factor in, but I am curious as to whether or not that factor would make a difference.

 

[quincy]

I am interested in one issue that no one has addressed. The OP said in post 16 that the house is going to be torn down. Can the landlord, legally, keep any amount of security deposit on a house that is about to be torn down, even if damages were done? Logically, the landlord wouldn't be out anything because the house is being torn own rather than re-rented to someone else. I realize that logic doesn't necessarily factor in, but I am curious as to whether or not that factor would make a difference.

ibnatasha2u is bound by the terms of the lease. The security deposit was collected to cover any damage to the property. The property must be returned to the owner of the property in the condition it was in when first rented, minus reasonable wear and tear.

It really doesn’t matter what the property owner decides to do with the property after the tenancy ends however any deductions made from the security deposit to cover property damage must be supported with evidence (receipts) that these dollars were used to repair damage caused to the property (beyond reasonable wear and tear). Extra dollars can be sought if the property damage exceeds the amount of the deposit.

It is possible that the property owner will want to salvage and sell what s/he can in the house prior to demolition. A house built in 1949 might have hardwood floors or wide baseboards or unusual lighting fixtures that can be worth salvaging, for example.

The security deposit could be returned in full if the property owner has no interest in making repairs or repainting or replacing carpet, and if nothing worth salvaging was damaged. If that is the case, ibnatasha2u probably won’t have any reason to sue the roommate.