Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2013, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,480,254 times
Reputation: 38575

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sea1siren View Post
Oooh....he did give us an estimate. And as he already has new tenants in the property, then he obviously didn't fix it.

Any idea where I can find something in writing about not allowing estimates?
Estimates are only allowed in certain circumstances and in any case, he has to get info to you within 14 days, blah blah, which he didn't. It's all here:

California Tenants - California Department of Consumer Affairs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2013, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,480,254 times
Reputation: 38575
He also has to have given you the option of a pre-move-out inspection, where he tells you what needs to be done in order to get your full deposit back. He has to give you an itemization and it has to include the section of law that's relevant on the itemization. If he didn't do that, he also loses his right to the deposit.

If there is damage that he couldn't see or that happened after the inspection, he can deduct for that.

My daughter got her security deposit back once in small claims court based only on the fact that the landlord didn't do the pre-move-out inspection notice as required by law to give her the opportunity to fix anything. He sent her the itemization on time, but deducted a bunch of stuff, so we researched the law (before I became a prop mgr).

Here's the law. The pre-move-out-inspection is in section F, California Civil Code 1950.5

http://housing.ucsc.edu/cro/pdf/CCC_...y-deposits.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 05:14 AM
 
Location: NJ
17,573 posts, read 46,126,539 times
Reputation: 16273
i don't think people realize he gave the full deposit back. Which I would think would make any law regarding the return of the deposit a moot point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,480,254 times
Reputation: 38575
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6 View Post
i don't think people realize he gave the full deposit back. Which I would think would make any law regarding the return of the deposit a moot point.
True. The OP is gathering info to use in court, as the LL is suing to get the deposit back that he had to refund. Letting the judge know all the things the LL did wrong may help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,787 posts, read 49,046,364 times
Reputation: 9478
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6 View Post
i don't think people realize he gave the full deposit back. Which I would think would make any law regarding the return of the deposit a moot point.
It is not at all moot. The law prescribes exactly what the landlord is required to do in order to withhold damages. He cannot waive all of that, return the deposit and then demand a do-over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,787 posts, read 49,046,364 times
Reputation: 9478
Quote:
Originally Posted by sea1siren View Post
Oooh....he did give us an estimate. And as he already has new tenants in the property, then he obviously didn't fix it.

Any idea where I can find something in writing about not allowing estimates?
Read the post that I linked to above, the requirement for receipts is quoted there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,480,254 times
Reputation: 38575
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
It is not at all moot. The law prescribes exactly what the landlord is required to do in order to withhold damages. He cannot waive all of that, return the deposit and then demand a do-over.
I just tried to rep you on this one, but it wouldn't let me give you another one LOL!

You said it so succinctly.

What he said LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:38 PM
 
16,376 posts, read 22,473,858 times
Reputation: 14398
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
It is not at all moot. The law prescribes exactly what the landlord is required to do in order to withhold damages. He cannot waive all of that, return the deposit and then demand a do-over.

He could sue for damages. It's perfectly legal and within his legal rights. The only difference is the payment (if he wins in court) is not coming out of the security deposit. But he could win a judgement. He does not waive all rights to sue for damages just because he messed up on timing of the security deposit and had to return it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,480,254 times
Reputation: 38575
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
He could sue for damages. It's perfectly legal and within his legal rights. The only difference is the payment (if he wins in court) is not coming out of the security deposit. But he could win a judgement. He does not waive all rights to sue for damages just because he messed up on timing of the security deposit and had to return it.
Then what is the purpose of the law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 04:47 PM
 
28,114 posts, read 63,642,682 times
Reputation: 23263
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Then what is the purpose of the law?
During the hearings pushing for the law, passage was seen as a way to expedite the process by instituting a time limit.

My non-legal understanding is the court was tied up with security deposit cases and the new law is in response including mandating a pre-move walk-through to minimize surprises.

I had a case where the tenant caused a grease fire through negligence... the deposit didn't even cover my deductible...

My insurance paid and went after and received a judgment from my now former tenants... one of whom is a paralegal...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top