Tenent required by lease to repaint whole house (apartments, tenant, rental)
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.
This house is located in central Washington. According to the lease for this house, the tenant is required to repaint upon move-out, irregardless of the length of tenancy. I lived in the house for one year and 10 months. Even with that clause in the lease, can the landlord require me pay for the entire repaint of the house, including what can be considered normal wear and tear?
How exactly are they stating that you must paint? Is it a nonrefundable fee in the lease or just a statement in the lease that says you have to paint the whole unit or was it only a verbal comment?
If they are just stating that tenants have to paint unit prior to move out it appears they can not enforce that because it is normal wear and tear. If there was 'damage' then that is a different story.
What repairs can my landlord hold me responsible for?
RCW 59.18.130 outlines a tenant’s responsibilities under landlord-tenant law. Tenants must keep their units clean and sanitary, dispose of garbage from inside their units, properly use the facilities and appliances supplied by the landlord, maintain smoke detectors batteries and more. Tenants also must not damage the property or allow guests to damage the property. Tenants can be held responsible for damages caused by them or visitors invited to the property. A tenant cannot be legally charged for damages caused by the landlord’s negligence or for damage resulting from normal wear and tear in the unit. See our Deposits webpage for more details.
This house is located in central Washington. According to the lease for this house, the tenant is required to repaint upon move-out, irregardless of the length of tenancy. I lived in the house for one year and 10 months. Even with that clause in the lease, can the landlord require me pay for the entire repaint of the house, including what can be considered normal wear and tear?
This house is located in central Washington. According to the lease for this house, the tenant is required to repaint upon move-out, irregardless of the length of tenancy. I lived in the house for one year and 10 months. Even with that clause in the lease, can the landlord require me pay for the entire repaint of the house, including what can be considered normal wear and tear?
absent a clause in the lease requiring a repaint, no - a landlord couldn't require a repaint.
With a clause in the lease, they could "require" anything that isn't specifically called out in your state's laws as illegal.
Your choice as a tenant is to agree to it, or find another place to rent.
Washington has a Tenant Duty to Conform to Reasonable Obligations rule. That means, unless its contrary to state aw, if you agreed to a reasonable term and condition in the lease, you are obligated to conform to that condition. Although a landlord can not charge you for routine painting as it's wear and tear, they can stipulate that you must paint upon move out and if you agreed to it, you agree.
Washington has a Tenant Duty to Conform to Reasonable Obligations rule. That means, unless its contrary to state aw, if you agreed to a reasonable term and condition in the lease, you are obligated to conform to that condition. Although a landlord can not charge you for routine painting as it's wear and tear, they can stipulate that you must paint upon move out and if you agreed to it, you agree.
Is your exact complete statement, including the bolded part, specifically cited somewhere? I can understand the part that is not bolded above but not the bolded part. If this were the case, then a LL could stipulate in the lease that tenant is responsible for ANY normal wear and tear situations such as painting, carpet replacement, appliance wear, leaky faucets, etc. etc. etc. (no damage) when all of that is contradictory to this:
What repairs can my landlord hold me responsible for?
RCW 59.18.130 outlines a tenant’s responsibilities under landlord-tenant law. Tenants must keep their units clean and sanitary, dispose of garbage from inside their units, properly use the facilities and appliances supplied by the landlord, maintain smoke detectors batteries and more. Tenants also must not damage the property or allow guests to damage the property. Tenants can be held responsible for damages caused by them or visitors invited to the property. A tenant cannot be legally charged for damages caused by the landlord’s negligence or for damage resulting from normal wear and tear in the unit. See our Deposits webpage for more details.
Just because some things are stipulated in a lease, it does not mean that they are always either legal and/or enforceable. So I am confused. Where is the line drawn here? A LL wouldn't even paint in most cases if the unit was only lived in for less than 2 years. I would think that a judge would find this contradictory to law and unreasonable.
Just because some things are stipulated in a lease, it does not mean that they are always either legal and/or enforceable. So I am confused. Where is the line drawn here? A LL wouldn't even paint in most cases if the unit was only lived in for less than 2 years. I would think that a judge would find this contradictory to law and unreasonable.
things that are //contrary to law // and stipulated in a lease are unenforceable. I can't charge a $10,000 deposit on a $1000 rental, because the law clearly sets the max amount of security.
You'll have a very difficult time finding a rental anywhere that doesn't have a non-refundable "cleaning fee" in the lease, and those are routinely upheld. In my area, it's very common for apartments in complexes to get hosed down with new paint & new carpet- no matter how long the previous tenant occupied the place. It's a selling point for new tenants (there's no cat-barf or dubious "stains" in new carpet, the mini-blinds are all new, you don't have to replace or clean the stove-burner pans, because those are new between every tenant) and your deposit won't get nicked for paint or carpet, because you *agreed* to a non-refundable $xxx "redecoration fee" at the beginning of the lease.
I don't see anything "unfair" or "illegal" about that, as long as it's clearly put into the lease at the beginning of the deal. The tenant gets a squeaky-clean & fresh apartment every time & the landlord doesn't have to invent a "value" for a stain in the carpet, or smudges on a wall.
things that are //contrary to law // and stipulated in a lease are unenforceable. I can't charge a $10,000 deposit on a $1000 rental, because the law clearly sets the max amount of security.
You'll have a very difficult time finding a rental anywhere that doesn't have a non-refundable "cleaning fee" in the lease, and those are routinely upheld. In my area, it's very common for apartments in complexes to get hosed down with new paint & new carpet- no matter how long the previous tenant occupied the place. It's a selling point for new tenants (there's no cat-barf or dubious "stains" in new carpet, the mini-blinds are all new, you don't have to replace or clean the stove-burner pans, because those are new between every tenant) and your deposit won't get nicked for paint or carpet, because you *agreed* to a non-refundable $xxx "redecoration fee" at the beginning of the lease.
I don't see anything "unfair" or "illegal" about that, as long as it's clearly put into the lease at the beginning of the deal. The tenant gets a squeaky-clean & fresh apartment every time & the landlord doesn't have to invent a "value" for a stain in the carpet, or smudges on a wall.
That is entirely your opinion and you are definitely allowed it however, not every state or every judge will agree with you. Each state has their own set of rules/laws and how they are enforced. And wear and tear is wear and tear. Requiring that a tenant always paint the WHOLE apt prior to vacating when there is absolutely no damage whatsoever is a bit extreme. And frankly, I can't believe there is a LL out there that wants tenants who are not remotely experienced, painting their entire apts.
OP, my opinion is that I would still challenge it. It sure doesn't hurt to at least consult an authority such as a tenant's union in your area, if available. You have nothing to lose.
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.
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.
