Should I go after my previous landlord for my security deposit ?

[uneven]

I just broke a lease too to move down to SD for a new job and I did some research. Basically, if there’s no clause for breaking the lease you’re responsible for the entire rent until he re-rents it. He has to “try” to get someone else which can be gray area but if he got someone in 15 days, he met his obligation. (mine took 3 months)

If he rents it for less, you owe the difference until your lease term is up. If he rents it for more (in my case he did) he owes you the difference until the remainder of the lease. He still must itemize within 21 days of moving out or you “may” be entitled to 3x the deposit, if you prove it’s malicious. I think the 3x will be a long shot with a judge who knows you broke the lease.

So, I think it comes down to the rent for 20 days of vacancy+actual amount he paid for repairs (ask for receipts)+ anything he paid to re-rent it (ads, fees etc) + difference in what he’ll get for the remainder of your lease term. You shouldn’t have paid for the gardener, but its too late I know. That money is gone. If all the rest adds up to your $3200, walk away. I don’t think you’ll get a favorable outcome in court.

Your only chance if you do go to court is to prove the neighbor situation made the place “unlivable or dangerous” and you notified him and he didn’t do anything about it.

[WestCoastNole]

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day’s living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement – PIGGs Rule !

– WCN

[WestCoastNole]

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day’s living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement – PIGGs Rule !

– WCN

[WestCoastNole]

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day’s living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement – PIGGs Rule !

– WCN

[WestCoastNole]

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day’s living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement – PIGGs Rule !

– WCN

[WestCoastNole]

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day’s living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement – PIGGs Rule !

– WCN

[Effective Demand]

[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.

[Effective Demand]

[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.

[Effective Demand]

[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.

[Effective Demand]

[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.

[Effective Demand]

[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.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Effective Demand][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.[/quote]

It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific “breach of contract damages”.

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. “Reasonable disagreement” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Effective Demand][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.[/quote]

It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific “breach of contract damages”.

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. “Reasonable disagreement” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Effective Demand][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.[/quote]

It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific “breach of contract damages”.

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. “Reasonable disagreement” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Effective Demand][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.[/quote]

It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific “breach of contract damages”.

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. “Reasonable disagreement” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

[Author]

Posts