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.
The walkthrough is already completed. The way I'm reading the OP's post is that the OP was not present for the walkthrough. If the OP was present, then yes it's probably fine that the LL sent an appointee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrc83
A lot of the charges on the itemize list of deductions include things that we never talked about during the walk-through.
Although the rules for evidence in Small Claims parts are generally less stringent than in traditional trail court, the tenant can usually successfully object to any evidence being used that is subject to "best evidence available" which is the person who actually did the inspection. So, unless the person who actually conducted the inspection is present at the hearing, what they say or wrote usually can get excluded leaving the actual landlord with nothing at the hearing.
As for light bulbs, unless the tenant has replaced all the light bulbs with broken bulbs, I agree its a petty item and can actually be used against the landlord by showing how petty they are. If they claim dirty this and that while also claiming a burnt out light bulb, a smart tenant can easily twist it to show there was no dirt just that this landlord is a petty cheap penny pincher looking to keep as much as they can from the security deposit; and ding it in "Bad Faith".
What are my chances of winning in small claims court? My former landlord sent her sister to do the final walk-through, even though she was perfectly capable of doing it. I am now facing exorbitant charges as well as facing charges for damages I didn't do. Missouri law says that the landlord must schedule a time with me to do the walk-through, and that I have a right to be there. A lot of the charges on the itemize list of deductions include things that we never talked about during the walk-through. My landlord has pictures of tall grass that she mowed, a few holes in the siding, a few holes in the wall, and pictures of burned-out lights. The charge for mowing the house's ditch was $160, the charge for burned-out lights was $80,The charge for filling the water softener was $80, the charge for removing some trash in the yard was $40. It went on to list other items that also had unrealistic charges. The sister didn't even talk about these issues with me, but yet I am being charged. I want to repeat that I didn't do these damages. Is her ignoring the law about walk-throughs (not performing it herself, sending sister instead) enough to help me win in small claims court?
What does your lease say about lawn maintenance, the water softner, and light bulbs? If it was your responsibility to mow the lawn, change the light bulbs and fill the water softener then you owe for those items, though I will agree those charges seem high. Did they provide receipts?
As to the siding and wall damage, did you complete a move in condition report documenting the pre-existing damage? If not then this becomes a he said she said argument.
I do agree that the items like the lawn, trash, and water softener should have been pointed out in the pre-move out inspection as those are easily correctable but if it was in your lease you may still be liable. I wouldn't let a tenant repair siding or patch a wall, most won't do it correctly.
Court would be a gamble, you might be able to reduce some of the charges but doubt you would get it all back.
What are my chances of winning in small claims court? My former landlord sent her sister to do the final walk-through, even though she was perfectly capable of doing it. I am now facing exorbitant charges as well as facing charges for damages I didn't do. Missouri law says that the landlord must schedule a time with me to do the walk-through, and that I have a right to be there. A lot of the charges on the itemize list of deductions include things that we never talked about during the walk-through. My landlord has pictures of tall grass that she mowed, a few holes in the siding, a few holes in the wall, and pictures of burned-out lights. The charge for mowing the house's ditch was $160, the charge for burned-out lights was $80,The charge for filling the water softener was $80, the charge for removing some trash in the yard was $40. It went on to list other items that also had unrealistic charges. The sister didn't even talk about these issues with me, but yet I am being charged. I want to repeat that I didn't do these damages. Is her ignoring the law about walk-throughs (not performing it herself, sending sister instead) enough to help me win in small claims court?
I'm not sure how you weren't at the walk through, yet mention "things you never talked about at the walk through"?
We're the lawn mowing, filling the water softener, the bulbs changed part of the lease agreement? Were you blighted by signing the agreement to take care of these items? If you were and simply decided not to do them then yes you should be charged
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
Oh please, you seriously think it's reasonable for a LL to try and withhold a security deposit for burnt out lightbulbs? That's about as much of a textbook definition of reasonable wear and tear as you're going to find.
Bottom line, the law states that the LL must schedule a time with the tenant and conduct the walk-through together. The LL failed to follow the law. OP, take him to small claims court.
While it's a wear item, I would think that the tenant wouldnt want to live in a house with burned out bulbs and would have the common sense to replace it. My leases do state that the property is to be returned in the same shape it was in. Which means if all the bulbs were working at move in they should be working at move out.
On that note I personally don't charge for bulbs simply because I buy by the saver pack of 24 bulbs and go through replacing the bad ones. It's just not a big deal IMO to replace a few bulbs if I find a few burned out ones. But then I don't have properties as described either.
I usually inform and it's written in leases that a pre exit walk through will be performed on such and such date 2 weeks prior to the last day of occupancy. That just simply gives them time to do any repairs. They can be there but it's not required. There will be a final walk and repair list etc.
The LL not being there isn't going to automatically make the op win the case. The representative could of been deemed competent as a stand in for the LL. Maybe op ignored the LL request for walk through. We don't know
As for the rest of the stuff, tenant cant prove the damages were there, and the LL can't prove the damages were done by the tenant since neither have what the law likes to call proof. It's going to come down in who the judge believes if it goes to court.
My leases do state that the property is to be returned in the same shape it was in.
You can put anything you like into your lease, it doesn't make it legally binding. Most states (if not all) will not allow you to deduct for reasonable wear and tear. Many areas define the useful life of common items (carpet, paint, etc...) and you can only deduct a pro-rated amount based on how long the tenant was there (or nothing at all, depending on how long they've resided there).
Most, if not all, states would not allow a provision in a lease saying that the unit must be in the exact same condition as when the tenant moved in. A landlord cannot deduct for basic wear and tear. This is like Landlording 101. Broken lightbulbs, faded paint, reasonably worn carpet, dirty blinds, small holes from nails to hang up pictures, and plenty of other things cannot be withheld from the security deposit, and depending on the jurisdiction, the landlord is opening himself up to potential triple damages if he attempts to.
The walkthrough is already completed. The way I'm reading the OP's post is that the OP was not present for the walkthrough. If the OP was present, then yes it's probably fine that the LL sent an appointee.
Dirt and holes, of any size, are damage and can be deducted as such. Reasonable wear and tear is lightly worn carpet/paint and minor scuffing and that is about it. If I provided a property with a new air filter, filled up soft water system, and working light bulbs and smoke detectors then I expect to get it back in the same condition or I will pay to have it all done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
You can put anything you like into your lease, it doesn't make it legally binding. Most states (if not all) will not allow you to deduct for reasonable wear and tear. Many areas define the useful life of common items (carpet, paint, etc...) and you can only deduct a pro-rated amount based on how long the tenant was there (or nothing at all, depending on how long they've resided there).
Please stop giving your opinion if you are going to be so obviously wrong about the basic principle of prorating damages.
Dirt and holes, of any size, are damage and can be deducted as such. Reasonable wear and tear is lightly worn carpet/paint and minor scuffing and that is about it. If I provided a property with a new air filter, filled up soft water system, and working light bulbs and smoke detectors then I expect to get it back in the same condition or I will pay to have it all done.
You can expect whatever you like. I would even go so far as to agree that you should get it back in roughly the same condition. However our personal opinions on the matter is irrelevant. Good luck going in front of a judge and claiming you should be allowed to deduct from the security deposit for burnt out light bulbs.
Minor nail or tack holes from hanging pictures are generally not able to be deducted. I'm not talking about larger holes or dozens of holes. Spend 10 seconds Googling and you'll find this Or hey, take it right from the California DCA,
Quote:
Generally, minor marks or nicks in walls are the landlord's responsibility as normal wear and tear (for example, worn paint caused by a sofa against the wall). Therefore, the tenant should not be charged for such marks or nicks. However, a large number of holes in the walls or ceiling that require filling with plaster, or that otherwise require patching and repainting, could justify withholding the cost of repainting from the tenant's security deposit.
(that's just one website of dozens that sums up the same message)
Quote:
Please stop giving your opinion if you are going to be so obviously wrong about the basic principle of prorating damages.
LOL okay. Are you saying that some areas do not deem a reasonable useful life of items and require the landlord to deduct accordingly?
Good luck going in front of a judge and saying you should be able to charge the full replacement cost of carpet that was 7 years old after the tenant moved out.
Reference the same California DCA website from before:
Quote:
Normal wear and tear to carpets, drapes and other furnishings cannot be charged against a tenant's security deposit. Normal wear and tear includes simple wearing down of carpet and drapes because of normal use or aging, and includes moderate dirt or spotting. In contrast, large rips or indelible stains justify a deduction from the tenant's security deposit for repairing the carpet or drapes, or replacing them if that is reasonably necessary.
One common method of calculating the deduction for replacement prorates the total cost of replacement so that the tenant pays only for the remaining useful life of the item that the tenant has damaged or destroyed. For example, suppose a tenant has damaged beyond repair an eight-year-old carpet that had a life expectancy of ten years, and that a replacement carpet of similar quality would cost $1,000. The landlord could properly charge only $200 for the two years' worth of life (use) that would have remained if the tenant had not damaged the carpet.
These laws can vary from location to location, but not being able to charge for basic wear and tear, as well as having to consider the useful life of items are common concepts.
You can expect whatever you like. I would even go so far as to agree that you should get it back in roughly the same condition. However our personal opinions on the matter is irrelevant. Good luck going in front of a judge and claiming you should be allowed to deduct from the security deposit for burnt out light bulbs.
Minor nail or tack holes from hanging pictures are generally not able to be deducted. I'm not talking about larger holes or dozens of holes. Spend 10 seconds Googling and you'll find this Or hey, take it right from the California DCA,
(that's just one website of dozens that sums up the same message)
From your own quote you are wrong, note that CA guidelines don't mean squat outside CA:
Quote:
or that otherwise require patching and repainting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober
LOL okay. Are you saying that some areas do not deem a reasonable useful life of items and require the landlord to deduct accordingly?
Good luck going in front of a judge and saying you should be able to charge the full replacement cost of carpet that was 7 years old after the tenant moved out.
Reference the same California DCA website from before:
These laws can vary from location to location, but not being able to charge for basic wear and tear, as well as having to consider the useful life of items are common concepts.
Certainly isn't what I said which is why I put the specific part you were wrong about in bold. You said, "pro-rated amount based on how long the tenant was there" which is completely wrong. You deduct the remaining life of the item, from the time of install to the time the tenant vacated is on the landlord not just "how long the tenant was there." Read, and more importantly understand, before you spout nonsense off and call it fact.
...... ....... a few holes in the siding, a few holes in the wall, and pictures of burned-out lights. The charge for mowing the house's ditch was $160, the charge for burned-out lights was $80,The charge for filling the water softener was $80, the charge for removing some trash in the yard was $40...........
So, you weren't capable of seeing the long grass by yourself? You didn't notice that all the lights were burnt out? You were not responsible for maintaining the water softener? You don't think those things count because no one pointed them out to you? You think trash in the yard is normal wear and tear?
I don't know if the charge for mowing the ditch was fair or not because I haven't seen the ditch. But if your lease said you were responsible for mowing and the landlord had to pay someone to come in and mow, then you should expect to pay for the mowing.
$80 for burnt out lights might be fair if the bulbs were LEDs. How many bulbs were burnt out and how long did you live in the dark? It's hard to believe all the bulbs burned out on the day after you left.
I've had tenants take expensive bulbs and replace them with burnt out incandescent bulbs (cost about 25 cents each, brand new). Since the LEDs should have had many years of life left, it is my opinion that the tenant stole the light bulbs and replaced them with garbage, trying to claim wear and tear. So, it is hard to say whether or not the charge for burnt out bulbs was fair.
If your landlord had to pay someone to come in and do repairs, many workmen charge a two hour minimum and often charge mileage on top of that. It costs serious money to pay for repairs. Some of the things you list, you could have repaired yourself for a few dollars, because you aren't paying yourself labor.
If you didn't take photos of the holes in the siding and the holes in the walls and document them before you moved your stuff in, then you are going to end up paying for that damage. You can't just say you didn't do it; you must have proof that the damage was there before you moved in.
From your own quote you are wrong, note that CA guidelines don't mean squat outside CA:
Yes, that's why I said that these laws will vary from state to state, but that these are extremely common concepts. Do you expect me to post links to the laws of all 50 states just to get a simple point across? I posted California, which is an illustrative example of the law in many places.
Quote:
Certainly isn't what I said which is why I put the specific part you were wrong about in bold. You said, "pro-rated amount based on how long the tenant was there" which is completely wrong. You deduct the remaining life of the item, from the time of install to the time the tenant vacated is on the landlord not just "how long the tenant was there." Read, and more importantly understand, before you spout nonsense off and call it fact.
I thought it was pretty obvious that in my example, the item (be it carpet, paint, etc...) would have been brand new when the tenant first moved in. Obviously if the tenant moved in after the item was installed, then the replacement price will be calculated accordingly. If that's your main concern, then you're just being pedantic.
You can put anything you like into your lease, it doesn't make it legally binding. Most states (if not all) will not allow you to deduct for reasonable wear and tear. Many areas define the useful life of common items (carpet, paint, etc...) and you can only deduct a pro-rated amount based on how long the tenant was there (or nothing at all, depending on how long they've resided there).
I know exactly what I can and cannot put in my leases. I also have leases that are rental specific and written by RE lawyers not just a off the shelf boilerplate lease. I know what I can and cannot charge for.
You do not deduct wear/end of life based on how long the tenant is there. You deduct it on taxes based on how long the item was installed there. The tenant gets charged for shortening the life of the item if they damage it. A tenant could be there for 6 months and you could of had new carpet installed and they burned gouged and stained it. Now it's 100% chargeable to that tenant.
Or the carpet may of been installed 9 years ago. And it has a manufacturers 10 year life cycle. The tenant is there for two years. The carpet is at its end of life after the first year. If he destroyed it I can't charge for it. I'll replace the carpet I don't care about that. Now he's starting a new cycle. Any damage he gets charged for. And I can sure raise his rent of I feel it's warranted.
Like I said before I have a good working relationship with my tenants. I don't feel the need to be Mr. big shot. I respect them and they in turn respect us and our properties. When they stop we part ways and I move on. I take whatever legal action I need to if I have to. I completely understand my duty and responsibilities as a landlord.
Their length of stay makes no difference.
Either way it depends on the state you live in. So it's not as across the board as you think. In some cases making a agreement that the tenant will be responsible for bulbs, light gardening and mowing, utilities, replacing AC filters etc can be completely binding.
On my leases I disclose the rates that a tenant will be charged in case there is cleaning, painting etc IF there is a charge demanded for things other than normal wear tear. So WHEN they leave and the place is filthy they had disclosure form the beginning. So there is no "I didn't know I was gonna get charged that".
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.
