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 LL has presented a claim against the security deposit within the time proscribed by state law (see Post #5) and even though he returned the SD as soon as the tenant left he's still within the time frame to claim against it.
While that may be technically true, if this case actually reaches a judge a judge will not look kindly upon it.
It's not wise to **** off a judge. Dockets are jam packed with cases already.
We also haven't heard about the "depreciated value" I mentioned earlier, so this case is worth much less than $800-$1,000 that the OP was told. I think it's a bluff.
So, this guy is already removing carpet and finds evidence of cat urine, and is now demanding the former tenant replace the carpet he was already removing? I've had a few Coronas tonight so I could be misreading that entirely.
Then the OP says the carpet was still wet days later after cleaning "thoroughly". What did you clean the carpet with? A pressure washer? There is no reason for carpet to be that wet days later.
I've also got to ask why the tarp? Was this to keep litter from getting ground into the carpet? Or did the OP think Kitty Kitty would only pee in the closet?
I have cats and I can't believe that carpet and possibly the floor underneath could be THAT soaked with cat pee and it not be something the land lord could smell at the time of the walk through. Seems like common sense.
I think it sounds like a bluff from a bully land lord. I would get a free consult with a lawyer. Personally I would also check county records to see if this landlord has filed any other suits like this and what the circumstances were just to get an idea of what your dealing with where your landlord is concerned.
While that may be technically true, if this case actually reaches a judge a judge will not look kindly upon it.
It's not wise to **** off a judge. Dockets are jam packed with cases already.
If the LL is within the parameters of the law where the SD is concerned then there would be no reason for the judge to be annoyed so I disagree. If the case goes to court the judge will decide upon the merits of the case itself. In the meantime the OP should try and reach a compromise on the amount being sought.
How could you not have known it was there just by the smell?? Honestly if you know there is a cat present in the house, I would have done a lot to make sure before I gave back a deposit.
How could you not have known it was there just by the smell?? Honestly if you know there is a cat present in the house, I would have done a lot to make sure before I gave back a deposit.
The landlord obviously returned the security deposit prematurely. As far as the smell not being obvious immediately after a carpet cleaning, this has been the case in many rentals and isn't at all unusual.
How could you not have known it was there just by the smell?? Honestly if you know there is a cat present in the house, I would have done a lot to make sure before I gave back a deposit.
In my post I talked about how after professional carpet cleaning there was no pet smells. But after a week, I could catch a scent of it here and there. After two weeks, it reeked. Had to remove carpet, pad and treat the cement. I like cats but never will have one as a pet, their accidents/litter is too stinky no matter how much you clean it.
I believe the OP is in Kansas where a landlord has 30 days to return the security deposit. He returned the SD when the tenant moved out and upon finding the additional damage, advised the tenant 22 days later so I believe can still claim against the SD even though he returned it prematurely.
Correct.
Kansas statutes 60-513 (2) gives the landlord two (2) years to file suit for damages.
Kansas statutes 58-2550(e) (Kansas Landlord Tenant Act) specifically states that the return of the security deposit DOES NOT preclude a landlord from seeking payment for damages or sue for damages that were not deducted from the security deposit.
The ability of a landlord or tenant to pursue damages beyond the Landlord Tenant statutes was upheld on July 10, 1983 by the Kansas Supreme Court. Lower courts will always allow for an action based on KSA 58-2550(e) because the State supreme Court said they must.
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.