[urbanrealtor]

[quote=captcha]The most popular Austrian?
Arnold Doubleblack[/quote]

Okay.
I might be wrong about this but I have been told his name is not Schwarze/negger (black/black) but instead Schwarze/n/egger (black/conjugation/hollow).
This would be consistent with the Austrian and German habit of giving those without last names (peasants, Jews, Gypsies) surnames that were animistic or occupational in nature. Like why Jews have names like Gansler (good herder)or Einstein (one stone).

Anyway, its what I have heard.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=captcha]The most popular Austrian?
Arnold Doubleblack[/quote]

Okay.
I might be wrong about this but I have been told his name is not Schwarze/negger (black/black) but instead Schwarze/n/egger (black/conjugation/hollow).
This would be consistent with the Austrian and German habit of giving those without last names (peasants, Jews, Gypsies) surnames that were animistic or occupational in nature. Like why Jews have names like Gansler (good herder)or Einstein (one stone).

Anyway, its what I have heard.

[urbanrealtor]

Well I think that between Allan’s certainty that everyone is Hitler and my insatiable need for malt liquor, we are likely doomed to stick with the references to the second most popular Austrian in history.

[urbanrealtor]

Well I think that between Allan’s certainty that everyone is Hitler and my insatiable need for malt liquor, we are likely doomed to stick with the references to the second most popular Austrian in history.

[urbanrealtor]

Well I think that between Allan’s certainty that everyone is Hitler and my insatiable need for malt liquor, we are likely doomed to stick with the references to the second most popular Austrian in history.

[urbanrealtor]

Well I think that between Allan’s certainty that everyone is Hitler and my insatiable need for malt liquor, we are likely doomed to stick with the references to the second most popular Austrian in history.

[urbanrealtor]

Well I think that between Allan’s certainty that everyone is Hitler and my insatiable need for malt liquor, we are likely doomed to stick with the references to the second most popular Austrian in history.

[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.

[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