California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

[mike1127]

My question involves a security deposit in the State of: CA

I'm suing my LL for (1) not providing a refund of the security deposit within 21 days (2) never providing an itemized list of charges or receipts (3) attempting to withhold money for "normal wear and tear" items like painting and replacing carpet when I had lived in the place for eight years.

There was a CA supreme court decision a while back that said that tenants who don't receive any refund within 21 days are entitled to get the entire amount back. Can someone help me find the text of that decision? I know there are searchable databases but I don't know how to find and use them.

Thanks,
Mike

[Mr. Knowitall]

The rule is that if the landlord doesn't follow the security deposit law, the landlord cannot retain the security deposit under the statute - but that doesn't mean that the landlord can't countersue you for damages you actually caused. So exactly what rule is it that you're hoping to find?

[mike1127]

I'm not looking for a rule; I'm looking for the text of a CA Supreme Court decision. Yes, the decision also stated the LL can countersue.

[BOR]

I'm not looking for a rule; I'm looking for the text of a CA Supreme Court decision. Yes, the decision also stated the LL can countersue.

Go to library where they have the CA Code. It does not have to be a law library. The main branch of your public library maybe of your county seat, or call around.

Look up the section on this 21 day rule law and there will be "case law annotations" after it.

It will probably be listed but it may only provide a summary/syllabus though. To find the whole case it can be searched for on the computer by name or at a law library.

[SChinFChin]

I don't know about the CA Supreme Court, but this link seems to confirm the 21 day rule, and what is involved:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/l...-deposit.shtml

[mike1127]

By the way, the reason I phrased that as "the tenant gets the entire security deposit back" (which wasn't clear, I admit) is that the LL must return the entire thing, _then_ countersue. And some LL's don't bother to countersue. I found cases on the internet in which the LL returned the whole thing and just let the matter go.

[DavidForthoffer]

There was a CA supreme court decision a while back that said that tenants who don't receive any refund within 21 days are entitled to get the entire amount back. Can someone help me find the text of that decision?

I searched Google Scholar of all California cases for the exact phrase "21 days" and each of the following words: deposit tenant

I got 6 hits. None of them were for the California Supreme Court.

Try different search criteria yourself.

[SChinFChin]

By the way, the reason I phrased that as "the tenant gets the entire security deposit back" (which wasn't clear, I admit) is that the LL must return the entire thing, _then_ countersue. And some LL's don't bother to countersue. I found cases on the internet in which the LL returned the whole thing and just let the matter go.

There's been some prior discussion on this board on state statutes that require the complete refund of deposits if deposit security rules aren't followed exactly. But at the same time, these same rules did not take away the right of the LL to sue if there are damages. What happens is as if the LL never asked for a security deposit in the first place, but on the tenants departure, sues for damages that he is entitled to.

Some LL's sue out of principle. On the other hand as LL, I find all too often, LL tries to weasal some deposit money for pure wear and tear, so in these cases, i don't think they would bother. I know some LL's deduct if there are small holes where people hang pictures. Well, painters patch up the holes as part of the job anyway, and a little extra if there are large holes, but nothing consequential. I do a complete overhaul when a tenant leaves, so if the there are minor damages, it is taken care of in the overhaul anyway, and really cost me nothing extra.

[That Guy]

....is that the LL must return the entire thing, _then_ countersue.

Where do you get that from?
Going by the definition of "countersue", you sue the landlord, he/she countersues, and the matter is typically resolved at the same hearing.
There is no law that I am aware of that requires the landlord to wait until your case is won and until you cash their check before they can file a counterclaim against you for damages.

[mike1127]

Never mind, I'm just muddled about it. Sometimes the LL will countersue, and sometimes sue (because he voluntarily returns the security deposit first and the tenant doesn't file a suit). I've seen both kinds of cases described on the internet.

I attended a small claims court session today as an observer, to see how it works. By chance one of the cases was a security deposit case. I liked how the judge handled it. The plaintiff started with a long rambling description of what a good tenant he was, but the judge interrupted him and said, "Look, we've got the letter here from the defendant itemizing the deductions, so let's just go through it item by item." After the defendant and plaintiff got a chance to speak to each item, the judge ruled. He tossed out a couple of them, ruled that one of them should be pro-rated at 50% because some of the damage was normal wear and tear, and accepted one of them.

This judge was a no-nonsense, straight-shootin kind of guy. He asked pointed questions, and sought clarity in all matters. It was quite as entertaining as The People's Court.