My wife passed away on May 4th. Due to the fact that she died in the home and there was no one to care for our children on my return to work, I moved out as quickly as I could manage given the circumstances. My wife was disabled and fell frequently, and several items in the home were damaged due to her catching herself on items not meant to hold her weight. Others were damaged due to having, at one point, 3 cats and a dog and a destructive toddler. Normally I would have made sure the home was clean and in as good of shape as possible before moving out, but given the circumstances I didn't have it in me to do much more than get our stuff out. As such, I wasn't expecting much of the deposit back, and was okay with that. On Sunday, I received an email from the prior landlord claiming costs of over $6000 (our deposit was $2650). He offered to take $2800 in lieu of the difference if I pay within three days, otherwise he states he will go to small claims court. I'm trying to figure out the best way to approach this, as some of the items he itemized seem sketchy and as far as I understand he didn't follow California law in how he handled the deposit or the email.
My last day at the property was on June 20th. We had already moved out at that point, but I met with him that day to turn over the keys and pay the pro-rated amount for June, so I would consider that the last day of possession. He sent me an email on July 12th with the itemized list of charges.
We lived there for a little over three years. Some of the itemized items I have no argument with. The carpets were trashed due to a senile dog and spills that didn't get cleaned up in a timely fashion. The porcelain sink in one bathroom was cracked by our son and needed to be replaced. The yards and interior were in need of serious cleaning. A couple shelves in the fridge and a couple drawers in the master batch had broken and would need to be replaced. Had the charges ended there and eaten up the deposit I would have had no argument.
So, to the questionable items. My understanding of what can be charged is mostly informed by the CA tenants rights handbook.
1) $1410 to repaint the interior. The home was freshly painted when we moved in. There were crayon marks and other stains, so that he felt the need to repaint does not surprise me. Reading through the CA tenant handbook it seems to imply that after 2-3 years a tenant can't be charged for repainting, as it would simply be wear and tear. Is that correct? Even if one assumes a longer life for the paint, he did not prorate.
2) He charges $2250 for the new carpet and an additional $250 to haul away the old carpet. He prorated the new carpet charge assuming a 12 year life for the carpet. 12 years seems a bit long to me, but I don't know what the standard is, or even if there is a standard. The haul-away charge also seems fishy to me, but I've never replaced a carpet.
3) He charges $427 in lost rent due to the time it took to do all the repairs. This is a weeks worth of pro-rated rent. Is this actually a legitimate charge?
4) He charged $450 for his own time in dealing with the property. $45/hr and 10 hours. He states this is time above and beyond what he would typically spend after a unit becomes vacant. He doesn't seem to be referencing labor, as he charged separate fees for cleaning the interior and exterior. This seems to be time spent hiring contractors or other parties to work on the property. Can he do this? Even if he can the hourly rate seems ridiculous to me.
5) He charged $450 for two sets of cleanings. One an initial cleaning at $200 and a final cleaning at $250. He states everything was still filthy after the initial cleaning. This seems excessive, particularly since this is supposedly after repainting and new carpets.
There are some other things I could nitpick, but on the whole I don't disagree with them, just with the amount within $50 or the tone. For instance he asserts some of the items were deliberately damaged, like the refrigerator shelves and some dents on the air conditioner intake. The fridge shelves cracked under normal use because their cheap plastic, and the air conditioner was dented because my toddler son likes to hit things with sticks. He also asserts that items that were damaged were "destroyed". For instance, the bathroom cabinet (which had an attached sink) had a couple drawers where the plywood had broken apart and those drawers were no longer usable. He said the sink was destroyed.
IIRC, I have the right to have the deposit returned or to receive an itemized bill by mail or in person within 21 days. If it's a bill, it is supposed to include invoices and receipts for all claimed damages. By my count he sent the email on the 22nd day, and it was a just text with no attached invoices or receipts, so he didn't meet the law either in time or substance. He also does not appear to have placed our deposit in an interest-bearing account, which I think is required under CA law. Our last landlord did that and we actually got more than our deposit back, even after a couple minor deductions.
So, those are the highlights. Please, if anyone has experience in CA tenant law please advise me on the best way to contest this. Should I take his offer (which I really can't seeing as I just returned to work and haven't received the life insurance payment yet)? Should I contest this in small claims and bring up his deficiencies in complying with his obligations? Should I respond to his email contesting the items I disagree with? Any guidance would be appreciated. I'm so angry about this on top of everything else that's happened that I can't really think straight and am at a loss as to how to proceed.
Thanks in advance.
Submitted July 14, 2015 at 12:42PM by Macbeth998 http://ift.tt/1CDwlDe legaladvice
No comments:
Post a Comment