BiggerPockets

My previous tenants allowed their dog to pee all over the bedroom carpet for 5 years! I deducted the damage from their security deposit to pay for the replacement, it also cost me an entire months worth of rent on top of having to replace the carpet, since I couldn't get a tenant in mid-month. They took me to small claims court over it and won. I had to give them back all of their deposit and pay the court fee! Is it possible to have had a corrupt judge? I brought witnesses and he still awarded her security deposit back to her - every last dime and don't understand why I lost the case.

Most areas depreciate carpet. Your judge may have thought the age of the carpet negated the damage. Or there was a problem with the way you withheld, or notified the tenant of the withholding. Did you get a written ruling? What does it say?

did you know there was a dog living there? did you alllow it? did you collect a pet deposit or fee in addition to security deposit? what condition was the carpet in before your tenants moved in? did you have pics of this from before they moved in?

What city and state? Some jurisdictions are more or less landlord friendly.

I would certainly review your lease. A lease should be reviewed every year laws change and a landlord learns more as well.

Kevin, makes a good point. 5 years is a long time that you have not had to worry about the property and you collected rent. Getting it rented again in one month is good as well.

With out knowing a little more about what you charged the tenant, if the proper notices were sent timely or any other details about the initial checklist and the followup review when the tenants moved out.

Jason's correct that you should have been given some explanation. I can think of a number of reasons:

1) The tenant gave adequate notice and left in accordance with their lease terms. You tried to deduct the next month's rent from their deposit. As long as they left in accordance with the lease, the time it takes you to do your make ready is not their problem. A judge would take a very dim view of trying to charge rent after they left.

2) You have a time line for returning the deposit or providing an accounting? For me, that's 30 days after they turn over the unit. If I don't provide a written accounting and their money (if any), then I MUST return the entire deposit. Actually, the tenant is allowed to require triple damages, and I could be required to pay them triple their deposit.

3) You tried to charge them to replace the entire carpet. Maybe the judge felt like after five years the carpet was "normal wear and tear". Now, I would personally disagree. If the carpet was in good condition and was clean before they moved in, they should have returned it in the same condition. But if you couldn't document when the carpet was installed or when you last cleaned it, the judge may have assumed the carpet was 20 years old and you were just trying to make the tenants pay for a replacement that was due anyway.

Impossible for any of us to say, given what you wrote. But there are any number of reasons why the tenant may have been due the money.

Some things, like periodic replacement of carpets and lost rent due to make ready time, are just part of this business.

Thank you to all of you who replied with great feedback and it did help me understand why the judge might have ruled the way he did even though I completely disagree with the decision. He didn't give any explanation during the hearing, only said he would send his decision (he was very arrogant), which when I received it was that there was insufficient evidence that they had caused damage. Also, the tenant gave supposed written proof that it didn't smell when they moved out, which I'm sure was from someone they know. We even did a walk through on move-out but it was only afterl I closed the windows during some rainy weather after they moved out that the smell became apparent. The judge never asked me if I had seen their evidence which they never brought up before the trial which they were supposed to have done, but he admitted it as evidence anyway. When it came to my evidence which they refused to look at and included a section of the carpeting I brought to trial, along with pictures, he refused to take the evidence since they refused to review my evidence so it couldn't be admitted. I have since filed a complaint against the magistrate because he accepted their evidence and not mine, which is currently under investigation by the court system (CT), but it doesn't change the outcome of the trial so I will have to pay. The carpet was older, but not worn to the point it needed to be replaced, only the amonia smell from the urine was so bad I couldn't re-rent the way it was. I even had a professional carpet cleaner come in and clean all rooms including having the room the dog was in deoderized, but it didn't help. I did give them a timely (within 30 days)itemized list of what was deducted for damages but I guess dog urine is normal wear and tear?! I have my own dog and couldn't stand if my dog urinated and I didn't have someone come in the next day to clean the carpet. I charged a pet fee (not a deposit)to let them have the dog in the house and it wasn't for the purpose of damages, only to allow the dog which the funny part as I advertised "no pets" but they begged and pleaded to allow me to let them bring their dog and I caved in. I'll never do that again. Hope the tenants I have now are better than the last! Any more advise any of you have with this information is also appreciated - just don't tell me the magistrate can come after me for filing a complaint about him, then I'll really be thinking about whether I should be standing up for my rights and hope I don't get him again if I have problems with the tenants I have now....thanks everyone.

you could always appeal and get a fairer trial with a judge, but it'll cost you....only you can decide if it's worth it, or if it's a cost of the business

How much did you sue for? Did you sue for the entire carpet replacement? Did you sue for rent after the teant's lease had expired? It's clear you weren't entitled to those things and if you asked for them the judge probably didn't look to fond on you.........and may have just dismissed you case because he thought you were trying to get one over.

Here in my area, Evictions go through justice court with no attorney needed, or through circuit court with an attorney. Most landlords go the circuit court route due to the comical nature of justice court. I have been to several evictions in Justice court, the rulings are comical. Just no rhyme or reason to most verdicts. You have to learn the system, then learn to "use" the system.