California Landlord wants $500 from our deposit for this?!

[Ay Zed]

1. landlord did not call this discolored ring out during initial inspection, even though it was there and our belongings were not in the way, he did not leave us a list to be fixed

2. after we moved out, he did a final inspection, and wants to take $500 from our deposit for this ring. so we aren't given a chance as required by law to fix this ourselves

Landlords & realtors, what do y'all think? 

(btw, he also called out a couple other damages, but fortunately, I had move-in photos with dates to prove that those damages were there before we moved in) 

[Chris Seveney]

Quote from @Ay Zed:

1. landlord did not call this discolored ring out during initial inspection, even though it was there and our belongings were not in the way, he did not leave us a list to be fixed

2. after we moved out, he did a final inspection, and wants to take $500 from our deposit for this ring. so we aren't given a chance as required by law to fix this ourselves

Landlords & realtors, what do y'all think? 

(btw, he also called out a couple other damages, but fortunately, I had move-in photos with dates to prove that those damages were there before we moved in) 

 write a letter noting you dispute the charge and state you did not do the ring, and if the ring occurred then prove to you its not a defect in the countertop.  To me this is nickle and diming personally. but just my 2 cents without knowing the entire story. 

[Nathan Gesner]

I think you've already asked this question.

There is nothing wrong/illegal about him discovering things in the final inspection that were missed during the first inspection. You may have been talking to him and distracting him during the first one. This is exactly why I do not allow Tenants to be present during my final inspection.

If you want to contest his charge, contest it. You can start by demanding he show evidence that it cost $500 to repair. If he doesn't answer to your satisfaction, you can consider taking him to court. Court probably costs $100 or more, plus a few hours of your time. Is it really worth it to get $250 back? $400?

Here's what I tell my tenants: if you don't want to pay high prices for cleaning and repair, make sure you leave the unit in the same condition you received it.

[Ay Zed]

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

I think you've already asked this question.

There is nothing wrong/illegal about him discovering things in the final inspection that were missed during the first inspection. You may have been talking to him and distracting him during the first one. This is exactly why I do not allow Tenants to be present during my final inspection.

If you want to contest his charge, contest it. You can start by demanding he show evidence that it cost $500 to repair. If he doesn't answer to your satisfaction, you can consider taking him to court. Court probably costs $100 or more, plus a few hours of your time. Is it really worth it to get $250 back? $400?

Here's what I tell my tenants: if you don't want to pay high prices for cleaning and repair, make sure you leave the unit in the same condition you received it.

 Thanks for your insights Nathan, but I do believe California has different landlord/tenant law than WY. Based on the legal advice I've received, it seems that the landlord cannot add to the list if the damage was not hidden during initial inspection. No one was distracting him while he did the walk-through. We are not that pathetic :) 

[Ay Zed]

Quote from @Chris Seveney:

Quote from @Ay Zed:

1. landlord did not call this discolored ring out during initial inspection, even though it was there and our belongings were not in the way, he did not leave us a list to be fixed

2. after we moved out, he did a final inspection, and wants to take $500 from our deposit for this ring. so we aren't given a chance as required by law to fix this ourselves

Landlords & realtors, what do y'all think? 

(btw, he also called out a couple other damages, but fortunately, I had move-in photos with dates to prove that those damages were there before we moved in) 

 write a letter noting you dispute the charge and state you did not do the ring, and if the ring occurred then prove to you its not a defect in the countertop.  To me this is nickle and diming personally. but just my 2 cents without knowing the entire story. 

Thanks Chris. I agree it's very petty.

[Nathan Gesner]

Quote from @Ay Zed:

California Civil Code 1950.5 includes the following:

(2) Based on the inspection, the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleanings that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions from the security the landlord intends to make pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). This statement shall also include the texts of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). The statement shall be given to the tenant, if the tenant is present for the inspection, or shall be left inside the premises.

(3) The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the initial inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies, in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of the parties under the rental agreement, in order to avoid deductions from the security.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for deductions itemized in the statement provided for in paragraph (2) that were not cured by the tenant so long as the deductions are for damages authorized by this section.

(5) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for any purpose specified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b) that occurs between completion of the initial inspection and termination of the tenancy or was not identified during the initial inspection due to the presence of a tenant’s possessions.

Emphasis is mine. The Landlord could argue the damage was not visible at the time of the pre-inspection, or that the damage occurred after the pre-inspection. You would have to prove otherwise.

You're spending a lot of time and energy on this. Why not just call the Landlord and try to negotiate a settlement? Show your pictures to a couple professionals and ask what they would charge to repair. If it's cheaper than $500 then you have some ammunition to negotiate with the Landlord. Or just save yourself the trouble and offer to split the difference and accept a $250 deduction and call it even.

We can give you advice but this will ultimately come down to you and the Landlord negotiating something.

[Ay Zed]

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

Quote from @Ay Zed:

California Civil Code 1950.5 includes the following:

(2) Based on the inspection, the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleanings that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions from the security the landlord intends to make pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). This statement shall also include the texts of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). The statement shall be given to the tenant, if the tenant is present for the inspection, or shall be left inside the premises.

(3) The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the initial inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies, in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of the parties under the rental agreement, in order to avoid deductions from the security.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for deductions itemized in the statement provided for in paragraph (2) that were not cured by the tenant so long as the deductions are for damages authorized by this section.

(5) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for any purpose specified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b) that occurs between completion of the initial inspection and termination of the tenancy or was not identified during the initial inspection due to the presence of a tenant’s possessions.

Emphasis is mine. The Landlord could argue the damage was not visible at the time of the pre-inspection, or that the damage occurred after the pre-inspection. You would have to prove otherwise.

You're spending a lot of time and energy on this. Why not just call the Landlord and try to negotiate a settlement? Show your pictures to a couple professionals and ask what they would charge to repair. If it's cheaper than $500 then you have some ammunition to negotiate with the Landlord. Or just save yourself the trouble and offer to split the difference and accept a $250 deduction and call it even.

We can give you advice but this will ultimately come down to you and the Landlord negotiating something.

 Nathan, thank you very much for that. So we did what you suggested: Since he asked to charge total $500, we counter-offered $250 and said that we don't need to see the receipts if it's that amount.

He called back yelling at us, saying he called Pros and it's not possible to remove the stain. He said the only way is to replace the whole counter which will cost us thousands and thousands of dollars. 

So, sounds like he was not planning on fixing anything, but just ask for $500. 

[Caroline Gerardo]

Cost to refinish and match all the counters might be $800- 1000.  He doesn't have to restore or replace the whole counter to charge you for damage in CA. What caused him to call out other damages, were there other disputes? Appears a hot pot melted the sealant or a food acid sat on there.

Go through your icloud or photo storage and see if you have image dated around move in and use as dispute. Or do you have a witness who saw the counter when you moved in? Old MLS images before you moved in? Without evidence you will likely lose in small claims and spend a day and a half filing and up front fees.

[Sam Yin]

As a Landlord, in CA, I have run into similar situations. Not trying to take sides, but I would like to comment that tenants often do not care that the Landlord often spends much more than the Security Deposit to make it rent ready for the next tenant. Additionally, Landlords do have the right to reinspect and charge a fair fee, whether they actually fix it or not. If a tenant is adamant that it be fixed for the fee, then a savvy Landlord will just ask that it be done and the tenant can cover the actual charge, which is often much more, or more time consuming for everyone involved.

From my perspective, I would tell a tenant that they can dispute it and take it to court. Especially when it is $500. Based on the picture, it may, or may not be from that kettle in the background. Regardless, that is a nice countertop permanently ruined. If the tenant were to prove to me that it was there prior to move it, I would not charge them.

That is the biggest question... was it there when you moved in? If so, do you have any evidence of such? If so, it think you clearly have a case to get your deposit back. If not, deduct it and move on.

Since you are on BP forum, I assume you have ambitions to get into the REI space. If so, you will find that this is much more frustrating for the Landlord than it is for the tenant. This is especially true in CA because the perception is that tenants have so much more rights and it is not a Landlord friendly state.

If you did accidentally cause that blemish, consider $500 a great deal because that sucks for the Landlord. If it was not you, and you have both the time and energy, fight it. At the end of the day, do what you feel is right based on your moral code so that you can sleep better at night.

[Ned J.]

I dont think that can be fixed w/o a whole new counter top. Consider the $500 a good deal for you because IF you did do it, the LL is going to eat the rest of that cost when they replace it.

The real question is can it be proven that it was there when you moved in? If it was there when you moved in, do you have pictures to prove that? Move in sheet with the damage noted? Anything that documents it being there at the time you moved in? If you have zero proof it was there when you moved in....and its there now...... who made it appear?

Doesnt matter if the LL saw it on first initial inspection or a couple of weeks later.... that's why LL legally have 30 days to give the deposit back. Some things dont show up right away. I can totally see not noticing that ring right away. Its' probably only really noticed at the right angle and the right lighting. Looks easy to miss

Thats why its critical for the tenant to make sure they document EVERYTHING that may be a concern for prior damage at move it.... pictures and video are the best......

[Dan H.]

Quote from @Ay Zed:

Quote from @Nathan Gesner:

I think you've already asked this question.

There is nothing wrong/illegal about him discovering things in the final inspection that were missed during the first inspection. You may have been talking to him and distracting him during the first one. This is exactly why I do not allow Tenants to be present during my final inspection.

If you want to contest his charge, contest it. You can start by demanding he show evidence that it cost $500 to repair. If he doesn't answer to your satisfaction, you can consider taking him to court. Court probably costs $100 or more, plus a few hours of your time. Is it really worth it to get $250 back? $400?

Here's what I tell my tenants: if you don't want to pay high prices for cleaning and repair, make sure you leave the unit in the same condition you received it.

 Thanks for your insights Nathan, but I do believe California has different landlord/tenant law than WY. Based on the legal advice I've received, it seems that the landlord cannot add to the list if the damage was not hidden during initial inspection. No one was distracting him while he did the walk-through. We are not that pathetic :) 

 >the landlord cannot add to the list if the damage was not hidden during initial inspection.

I challenge you to show me any law, etc. in CA that states all damage must be noted during the initial inspection.  There are a lot of people who think they know the rules that do not.  

For my qualifications, my family has had rentals in CA since the 1970s.  I have had too many tenant turnovers to count (including 2 this month).  I do an initial inspection, but if I find things after the initial inspection I document it with photos.  In reality, I am pretty easy on tenants' deposit if they have been in the unit for a while.  I do not charge for some items that are beyond normal wear and tear when the tenant has lived in the unit for a while.  However, if I find something after the initial inspection that the tenant damaged, I have the right to charge them (and I provide photo evidence).   

Did you fill out a move-in checklist?  We have each tenant fill out a move-in checklist.  We pre-populate it with damage that we are aware of.  The tenant is responsible for noting any damage that we missed.  We provide the tenant adequate time to note any damage (we usually start asking for it about a week in and do not start getting demanding for another week - so 2 weeks to note any damage that we missed).  If there is damage at check out that was not noted on the move-in checklist, then it is new damage.  

If you have a move-in checklist that noted the damage, then it is pre-existing.  If not, it will be considered new damage.

I suggest you obtain a quote from a licensed contractor to address the damage.  This will let you know if the LL's charge is reasonable.  I personally think it is high, but I have not got a quote and am often surprised at the cost of various repairs.  If your quote is substantially less than the LL is charging, have a discussion with the LL.  If your quote is legit (from a qualified licensed contractor), your LL should reduce the amount he is charging you.  If you cannot get a quote for less than the LL is charging, then his charge is fair because that ring is not normal wear and tear.  Note, I recognize that it was not intentional, but it still happened and the LL should not have to pay for your accidents.

Good luck