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.
Genuinely curious here. I was pulling up my original lease (for extension purposes) and despite us living here 2 years (no signs of leaving til my husband retires from the military in a few years), I thought we signed for a pet fee, but there in the wording was "non refundable pet deposit". That in and of itself seems like a weird wording. Deposit usually indicates a return upon good receipt, but non refundable just seems confusing.
Again, not trying to "pull one over" on the landlord, just genuinely curious as to why that wording. Wouldn't it just be easier to say non refundable pet fee or am I to ascertain that any potential "pet damage" would be taken from the pet deposit?
Don't know where you are, but in some places, non-refundable fees or whatever they want to call them, are not legal. They're not legal in CA. Landlords here do it all the time, but if the tenant ever took them to court over it, they'd win. Here, other than the application fee which can't be over a certain amount (around $45), any other fees collected, no matter what they're called, are to be considered part of the security deposit and are treated as such, with maximum to be collected to be two times the rent for unfurnished, three times for furnished.
I have no idea why you think "non refundable pet deposit" is confusing. Playing semantics with "fee" and "deposit" ? - non-refundable is just that.
If there is pet damage, that will be a charge on TOP.
Because, as I stated, a deposit is something usually given back upon return of an item (or in this situation, the house), so a non refundable deposit seems like its contradictory.
Then what is the point of a pet deposit, if the charge is on top?
We do not have pet damage, i'm just simply trying to understand the mental gymnastics of the statement.
What would be funny, is if your landlord charged you a bunch of damage, and wanted to take it out of your security deposit, and not credit any of the pet non-refundable "deposit." Then, have you sue them in small claims court, and tell the judge that the pet deposit should first be used for the pet damage before they can use the security deposit money, since it was called a deposit.
:-)
It's just a stupid mistake, is my opinion. And I agree with you that calling something a deposit that is non-refundable is an oxymoron.
I would find it funny also, considering neither of the dogs are chewers, and the owner (not the PM) has already said to me the carpet is old, so they're replacing it regardless when we leave. We had a situation where the carpet was unraveling and we thought it was our dog tearing up the carpet (neither never have before, but pets can be unpredictable with moves). Come to find out, the owner had a cat that was locked by accident in that room once and it tore at the carpet and apparently our vacuum is just a little too strong and made it worse.
But, i have it in writing that they're replacing it on their dime when we leave since its aged out anyway
You did not mention additional fees per month. Our complex charges a $300 Pet Deposit, refundable, when you sign the lease and an extra $25 per month per pet. Most of the apartments in my area charge an extra $25 or even $50 per month per pet. That non-refundable cost adds up pretty darn fast. Maybe your complex uses your initial pet deposit instead of all of the monthly charges?
You did not mention additional fees per month. Our complex charges a $300 Pet Deposit, refundable, when you sign the lease and an extra $25 per month per pet. Most of the apartments in my area charge an extra $25 or even $50 per month per pet. That non-refundable cost adds up pretty darn fast. Maybe your complex uses your initial pet deposit instead of all of the monthly charges?
We rent a SFH, but no pet fee per month. It was a flat 250 per animal non refundable pet deposit (so we paid 500 for both small dogs). I'd definitely pay more if it was a monthly fee, don't get me wrong, totally not complaining, just the wording seems so contradictory of itself We'll likely be in this house for about 5 years before he retires, so 25, even 50 per month pet fee would add up pretty darn high over all those years.
Approx 10-15 years ago, they were more commonly called Non-Refundable Pet Deposits. Which, I agree, doesn't make sense because deposit assumes it's refundable.
Over time, as court cases occurred in various states, landlords got wiser and began to rename it to Non Refundable Pet Fee. This makes it less confusing.
Basically, your landlord is using the wrong term. However, the meaning is clear. You aren't getting that money back. Anyone, including your local judge is going to interpret "non-refundable" to mean that you aren't getting your money back.
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.
