Badly need help!!!! Landlord wants to keep my security deposit. (Pittsburgh: for sale, foreclosures)

[jenniferprestia]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

It depends. If replacing the damaged part is preferable to you than repair, but repair is cheaper and will return the device to proper function, then you are only entitled to the repair cost not the replacement cost.

Absolutely, but could you claim the repair cost and put that money towards a replacement?

I do take your point about actual damages. My question relates not specifically to this case (as Hopes has pointed out it's one thing to a say "it's going to cost this to repair" but another thing to say "I paid this to have it repaired" when you haven't), but whether a Landlord having provided the itemized list, and obtained estimates, would have to, if he was sued, prove that the repairs had actually been done. I am assuming that said landlord could prove that there was damage, and that damage had been done by this tenant. It's a question of timing as much as anything and quite theoretical - most landlords wouldn't keep a property vacant for the amount of time this would take to get to court.

As to your point no breaks for labor as a landlord - what if the landlord was an incorporated company? And kept their own repair staff?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by jenniferprestia

As to your point no breaks for labor as a landlord - what if the landlord was an incorporated company? And kept their own repair staff?

I can answer that one based on my experience with my office building management company which employs a full staff.

Repairs and maintenance are billed in a parts and hourly labor type manner.

They do not get quotes from outside sources, and then save money by doing it themselves.

[JoeLeaphorn]

As I said, damages are based upon cost. You could try to argue opportunity costs, but that would be difficult. If you had your own business, you'd have to argue that the cost was competitive with the market prices and, of course, there would be taxes on the work done, which would erode your margins.

These are all hypotheticals. The bottom line is that you are entitled to out of pocket expenses, not sweat equity.

[ditchdigger]

An interesting and educational discussion, even with all the disagreement.

My 2 cents worth of questions to further muddy the water:

The bottom line is that you are entitled to out of pocket expenses, not sweat equity.

Sooo, what if, for whatever reason, the landlord chooses to not rent the subject property again right away, and thus does not make the needed repairs immediately? There are no immediate "out of pocket" costs to prove, but the damage still exists, and the landlord should be made whole at some time or another, shouldn't he? What if the landlord chooses to neve rent said property again, but instead sells it, as is? The market price would reflect the condition of the property at the time of the sale, which would logically be less than its value before the tenant damaged it. Are you saying that a court would find the landlord was not entitled to retain the security deposit to make him whole for that lost value?

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Are you saying that a court would find the landlord was not entitled to retain the security deposit to make him whole for that lost value?

No. If the tenant decided to appeal, the court would likely hear all the arguments and then make some determination as to the cost of the damages and award that to the landlord.

The point that I was trying to make is that the list sent by the landlord to the tenant is necessary, but not sufficient, if the tenant objects.

Suppose, for example, that the landlord decided to withhold the cost to repaint the dwelling from the security deposit. The tenant could object that the need to repaint the dwelling was not a result of any action on the part of the tenant other than normal wear and tear. Or, supposing that the landlord submits an estimate for replacement of a broken window. The tenant has the right to appeal and can present alternate estimates in his/her favor. The court would, then, decide which estimate to accept.

Retiredcoach seemed to suggest that it was the responsibility of the tenant to prove that they didn't cause the damages. The law says different.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

At least out here, a landlord is required to have the carpets cleaned in between renters, and if the time between renters is more than 2 years the landlord is required to paint. On HIS dime.

..

Does the government require this to be done? If so, I wouldn't be a landlord out there. How much more do you want Uncle Sam in your business?

[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by COPANUT

Does the government require this to be done? If so, I wouldn't be a landlord out there. How much more do you want Uncle Sam in your business?

Most responsible landlords, and I wish to believe that I am one, will present the tenant with a list of rules and responsibilities included with the initial lease. Once all information is reviewed and discussed, all persons sign. This becomes a contractual part of the lease. So that there is no dispute at the conclusion of the lease, I will also provide them with a standardized list of charges, prior to the move-in date. I generally specify that carpets must be professionally cleaned, plus deodorized if a separate pet lease is included. It is real easy, then, if they cannot provide a receipt of the carpets professionally cleaned, for me to deduct from their security deposit.

I specify that the tenant not put holes in the walls in the rules and regulations. If the tenants opt to ignore this rule, my standardized predetermined charge for repairing/ painting each hole is $25. Usually, most tenants abide by that rule, but there will always be those who assume that the rule does not apply to them. Those tenants will see deductions taken from their security deposits. They are responsible for proving to the courts that they did, in fact, abide by the rules of the contract that they signed .

As an example, it specifies in the rules and regulations page of my lease that stoves and refrigerators be cleaned thoroughly. The charge for me doing this will be $25 each. If the tenant leaves a dirty refrigerator and/or stove, I take pictures/video of it, deduct the pre-determined amount from the security deposit, and then, either clean it myself or pay someone the stated amounts. If called to task, I merely present the pictures, and signed contract to the courts.

From previous posts, the landlord generally cannot charge for his "sweat equity" unless it is defined in the lease. He may charge for materials and supplies, however. There will be cases where damages are done that are not specifically addressed in the lease. In those cases, the landlord is usually better served by getting a written estimate of repairs. Even if the landlord does not follow through with the repair (ex. a burn hole in the carpets), the judge will usually allow for the damages.

[Copanut]

Retiredcoach,

My point is allowing the govt to set that as a law is bs. My properties are all up to date, and I tend to believe most landlords are responsible. But I'm sure you'll agree with me that no matter how well a potential tenant presents himself, you never know what type of renter they'll be. And I'm sure you have a ton of stories as do I.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by COPANUT

Does the government require this to be done? If so, I wouldn't be a landlord out there. How much more do you want Uncle Sam in your business?

No they don't require it, but the law assumes a two year life on painted walls and therefore gives a landlord a possible remedy on costs.

Let's say you paint your unit and your tenant Mr Rotten moves in and 6 months later when he moves, you MUST repaint.... you can charge him for the whole thing. But if he stayed for two years, and the paint job is shot -- repainting is out of your pocket.

Now -- if the place doesn't need repainted -- the rules are such that the tenant leaves the place in like condition when he vacates. So if Mr Rotten trashes the place you can charge after 6 months.... but after two years it's a simple repaint is still your problem.

Out here landlording is big business. The city where I live is over 50% rental. The reason we bought in the area we did, is we could afford it and most of the other homes were also owned. So yeah -- we have a lot of tenant rights. More than they should have, in my opinion.

I know from my janitorial work at condos, it's hard to get someone out of your unit when they are causing all sorts of problems and costing you money in fines and fees. The owner of one of the units in the building I clean finally got rid of a very problematic woman and her drug addicted, gang banging daughter who hooked out of the unit...

It took 6 months and court orders to get the daughter out (luckily she threatened a resident and a restraining order was filed -- that was green light to get her evicted)... and then another 6 months to get the woman out....

Not to mention 16 filled dumpsters....

[Copanut]

My point is most of my rentals are in better condition than those that don't rent. Do you want the govt. to demand you paint YOUR home every two years? I don't.

Where do we draw the line with government running our lives?