[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.

[Effective Demand]

[quote]Please remind him that California awards treble damages. [/quote]

Only for acting in bad faith. I don’t think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn’t bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don’t think you’ll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

[Effective Demand]

[quote]Please remind him that California awards treble damages. [/quote]

Only for acting in bad faith. I don’t think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn’t bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don’t think you’ll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

[Effective Demand]

[quote]Please remind him that California awards treble damages. [/quote]

Only for acting in bad faith. I don’t think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn’t bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don’t think you’ll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

[Effective Demand]

[quote]Please remind him that California awards treble damages. [/quote]

Only for acting in bad faith. I don’t think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn’t bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don’t think you’ll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

[Effective Demand]

[quote]Please remind him that California awards treble damages. [/quote]

Only for acting in bad faith. I don’t think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn’t bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don’t think you’ll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=sobmaz]
It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
…
Yet…..you have so many saying “you broke a lease, be happy they don’t get you for more” or something to that effect.
[/quote]

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

[quote=sobmaz]Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.
[/quote]

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states “Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year”, then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=sobmaz]
It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
…
Yet…..you have so many saying “you broke a lease, be happy they don’t get you for more” or something to that effect.
[/quote]

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

[quote=sobmaz]Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.
[/quote]

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states “Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year”, then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=sobmaz]
It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
…
Yet…..you have so many saying “you broke a lease, be happy they don’t get you for more” or something to that effect.
[/quote]

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

[quote=sobmaz]Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.
[/quote]

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states “Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year”, then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=sobmaz]
It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
…
Yet…..you have so many saying “you broke a lease, be happy they don’t get you for more” or something to that effect.
[/quote]

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

[quote=sobmaz]Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.
[/quote]

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states “Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year”, then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

[Effective Demand]

[quote=sobmaz]
It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
…
Yet…..you have so many saying “you broke a lease, be happy they don’t get you for more” or something to that effect.
[/quote]

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

[quote=sobmaz]Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.
[/quote]

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states “Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year”, then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

[Author]

Posts