[quote=urbanrealtor]Why is there no case? The law is pretty black and white on this stuff and tends to favor the tenant.[/quote]
It is pretty black and white and tends to favor the damaged party…
[quote=urbanrealtor]I am open to the idea that I am wrong but I would like it if you could be specific. [/quote]
California Civil Code Section 1951.2 and basic contract law
[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, lying about work being done (as alleged by the OP) counts as bad faith. Treble damages really would apply.[/quote]
You can reasonably disagree on fees and it not be bad faith. The LL made a good faith effort in mitigating damage (Heck I was impressed he rented it so quick!).
I think the calculus of the decision goes something like this.
If the LL didn’t itemize deductions and work effort for repairs in 21 days of move out then he gives up the right to retaining security deposit and all the wear and tear type damage. BUT, that does not mean he gives up the right to the breach of contract damages he incurred and he would have to ask and then sue the OP for that money.
By the OP’s count I see the breach of contract damage at a minimum:
15 days unrented = $1487
11 months at lowered rent = $1375
Then the OP and LL would be fighting about the stuff in the middle (how many actual days it was empty the LL claims 20, marketing fees to get it rented, OP’s claim to the gardner money should be paid back). I think the difference between the deposit and minimum liability is small (a few hundred dollars) and the difference over the deposit and maximum liability is significant (couple grand) that calling it even sounds awfully darn good.
