I read Steve Halket's posting from last week, and I offer some further comments hoping to make this important subject even more clear.
Steve says that he agrees with me that cleaning is not replacing or repairing. But it is not wear and tear either.
First, let me point out that "normal wear and tear" is a matter of what normally should happen to a carpet (or whatever), not what a person might do to it in the course of what they think may be normal behavior.
Having said that, I would change some of your example, Steve, hoping only to contribute to a discussion that makes the issue more clear for us all:
Walking on the carpet, bringing in dirt from the outside, dust from open windows, etc. is very normal behavior, and (under ordinary circumstances) is not damage to a carpet. But it is not wear and tear, either. It is cleaning.
If you walk on the carpet for 20 years and wear out a hole in it, that's wear & tear. When I have to clean a carpet because the tenant didn't, I take a picture of the drain water from the extractor. If it is black, the photograph serves as a demonstration of the need for cleaning. So dirt, even from normal behavior, is neither damage nor wear & tear, but is cleaning.
Lint on a carpet that can be vacuumed up is not wear & tear, but cleaning. It was the tenant's responsibility to vacuum the lint. The carpet wasn't worn or torn from normal use, it was dirty.
A mark on tile that can be cleaned by mopping or even scrubbing is again, not wear & tear, it is cleaning. Vinyl floor covering that has a hole worn through, strictly from walking on it for years is wear & tear. A rip in the floor covering from dragging a sharp object across it is negligence, not "normal" wear & tear, no matter how normal the activity that caused it.
Spilling beer (or anything else) on the carpet while watching the Superbowl game in the living room is not "normal wear & tear", no matter how normal the activity of watching the game in the living room or drinking beer may be. It is negligence, and the tenant is responsible for cleaning if it can be cleaned, and damage otherwise.
As a parent myself, I am not surprised to see a kid's room with crayon writing or ball-point pen writing on the walls, or a lot of other things. But, no matter how normal that is for children to do, it is still not "normal wear & tear", it is damage.
I had a tenant once, who sued me for return of his security. He happened to be a paralegal, who claimed that he was going to law school at night. I don't doubt that he had advice from the lawyers at his firm. In court, he questioned his roommate, asking him questions like: "Did you throw any wild parties?" and "Did you bring any farm animals into the apartment?", trying to establish that all that they did was normal behavior, and I answered with the argument that it is not the behavior that counts, it is the result and whether the result is a normal result based on wearing and tearing. The judge said verbally that he agreed with me. He also threwthe book at the paralegal, although I don't know if it was my argument or that the paralegal had made a fool of himself in court in this and other ways.
Steve, I don't understand what you mean that "However, if you just have to clean the carpet, that is considered 'normal wear' and would be done as a normal course of releasing the unit.". Do you mean, as the tenant's normal course of releasing the apartment back to the landlord? It is the tenant's responsibility to leave it clean, including the carpet. Dirt is never wear & tear.
"As for 'cleaning the entire condo', it sounds like that should be an owner expense... as long as you left it in clean and reasonable condition.". How would this come about? Theoretically, the owner having cleaned once in the beginning should never have to clean again from tenant-to-tenant, because each tenant should clean and pass it on. Of course, if one tenant slips up, the owner still owes a clean apartment to the next tenant if he has to charge the old tenant or eat the expense himself. But theoretically, it should work that way. It can be reasoned, based on the idea that tenants normally should not have to leave the apartment cleaner than they got it (although the landlord can contract with the tenant to do that). That idea works two ways. If they don't have to leave it cleaner than they got it, can they leave it less clean than they got it? No.
I often have the problem that tenants think (or claim) that they leave it clean but I have to have the unit re-cleaned before I can bring the next tenant. In court once, I prevailed, but the judge advised me to put a cleaning standard into the lease. I have since put in the clause that the tenant shall return the apartment "in its original clean condition". This is a higher standard than "clean and reasonable condition", and I believe that my standard is what judges apply in California, although I feel even better having in the lease.
All this standard business is, of course, subject to proof of the facts in court on either side.
