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

[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

[Effective Demand]

[quote=urbanrealtor]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%5B/quote%5D

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=urbanrealtor]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%5B/quote%5D

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=urbanrealtor]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%5B/quote%5D

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=urbanrealtor]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%5B/quote%5D

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=urbanrealtor]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%5B/quote%5D

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

[urbanrealtor]

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

[urbanrealtor]

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

[urbanrealtor]

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

[urbanrealtor]

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

[urbanrealtor]

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

[Effective Demand]

What would be the liability of the OP for breaking the lease if there was no security deposit at all?

No condition issue, no wear and tear, plain and simple, the only issue is the breaking of the lease. What is his liability?

California Civil Code 1951.2
[quote]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee:
(1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
(2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.
(b) The “worth at the time of award” of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent.
(c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if:
(1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; or
(2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease.
(d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee’s breach of the lease do not waive the lessor’s right to recover damages under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or
property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.
[/quote]

[Effective Demand]

What would be the liability of the OP for breaking the lease if there was no security deposit at all?

No condition issue, no wear and tear, plain and simple, the only issue is the breaking of the lease. What is his liability?

California Civil Code 1951.2
[quote]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee:
(1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
(2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.
(b) The “worth at the time of award” of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent.
(c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if:
(1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; or
(2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease.
(d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee’s breach of the lease do not waive the lessor’s right to recover damages under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or
property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.
[/quote]

[Effective Demand]

What would be the liability of the OP for breaking the lease if there was no security deposit at all?

No condition issue, no wear and tear, plain and simple, the only issue is the breaking of the lease. What is his liability?

California Civil Code 1951.2
[quote]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee:
(1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
(2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.
(b) The “worth at the time of award” of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent.
(c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if:
(1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; or
(2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease.
(d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee’s breach of the lease do not waive the lessor’s right to recover damages under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or
property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.
[/quote]

[Effective Demand]

What would be the liability of the OP for breaking the lease if there was no security deposit at all?

No condition issue, no wear and tear, plain and simple, the only issue is the breaking of the lease. What is his liability?

California Civil Code 1951.2
[quote]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee:
(1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
(2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.
(b) The “worth at the time of award” of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent.
(c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if:
(1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; or
(2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease.
(d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee’s breach of the lease do not waive the lessor’s right to recover damages under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or
property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.
[/quote]

[Author]

Posts