How are Carpet Replacement and Painting Prorated

My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: California.

I moved out after eight years. My landlord, who speaks very little English and is a kind of passive-aggressive person, refused to do a walkthrough. He took more than 21 days to send me the security deposit refund. Finally I received it, and he deducted $500. He listed the reasons for deduction but did not give amounts associated with each item.

He said he charged me for painting and carpet. After I have lived in a place for eight years, it seems to me that normal wear and tear would mean painting and carpet are necessary anyway. Does the law say that I can only be charged a prorated amount against the normal lifetime of paint and carpet?

I called him to ask if he prorated the charges for carpet and painting, but he didn't understand the question. he kept describing how expensive the carpet was, however, so I believe he did not prorate it.

Thanks,
Mike

you cannot be charged for normal wear and tear of either the carpet of the need for painting.

The carpet: unless you caused abnormal wear and tear (i.e. damages), he cannot charge you anything for the carpet. It wears out. That is covered by your rent.


Is there some reason he had to paint? Had you damaged the walls? Did you cause them to get excessively dirty so cleaning them was not a possibility?

If you caused damages, then he could charge you but here is where the depreciated value come in. If there were no damages, then he simply had no right to retain any of your deposit.

this is from http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/l...k/catenant.pdf

Quote:

---

(page 53-54)
under California law, 21 calendar days or less after you move, your landlord must either:
•
send you a full refund of your security deposit, or
•
Mail or personally deliver to you an itemized statement that lists the amounts of anydeductions from your security deposit and the reasons for the deductions, together with a refund of any amounts not deducted.218
the landlord also must send you copies of receipts for the charges that the landlord incurred to repair or clean the rental unit and that the landlord deducted from your security deposit. the landlord must include the receipts with the itemized statement

---

take a read of that link, It is quite lengthy but very thorough.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you cannot be charged for normal wear and tear of either the carpet of the need for painting.

The carpet: unless you caused abnormal wear and tear (i.e. damages), he cannot charge you anything for the carpet. It wears out. That is covered by your rent.

---

Thanks , but I have seen this statement in many places, and what's not clear to me is whether he can only charge for the depreciated value of the carpet.

I did leave some dents in the carpet where my bed and shelves were standing. That is the only damage. But even if I destroyed the carpet, why should I pay the full cost of one, when after 8 years its value has depreciated to almost nothing?

By the way, the carpet was a cheap "outdoor" variety with no thickness, no shag. I have photographs that show that it has no shag.

Quote:

---

Is there some reason he had to paint? Had you damaged the walls? Did you cause them to get excessively dirty so cleaning them was not a possibility?

---

They had some holes which I filled with carpeter's putty; to finish the job it needed to be painted. Again, my question has to do with the expected lifetime of paint. After EIGHT years shouldn't something have to be painted regardless of how much dirt I put there?

How is normal lifetime determined under CA or does the small claims judge "wing it"?

What is the consequence that he took 28 days to return my deposit and did not include any receipts?

Thanks,
Mike

Quote:

---

mike1127;436286]Thanks , but I have seen this statement in many places, and what's not clear to me is whether he can only charge for the depreciated value of the carpet.

---

it is simple but there are two steps:

1. have you caused any undue damage or is there only normal wear and tear? If only wear and tear, he cannot charge you anything for the carpet regardless of how worn it is.

2. did you damage the carped beyond what would be normal wear and tear?

If yes, he can charge you only the depreciated value of the carpet

Quote:

---

I did leave some dents in the carpet where my bed and shelves were standing. That is the only damage. But even if I destroyed the carpet, why should I pay the full cost of one, when after 8 years its value has depreciated to almost nothing?

---

dents are not damage unless they are permanent. Unless there was actual damage to the carpet, he cannot charge you for it. I cannot see a dent caused by furniture setting on it as actually damaging it. It will recover generally.

Quote:

---

By the way, the carpet was a cheap "outdoor" variety with no thickness, no shag. I have photographs that show that it has no shag.

---

an important part of establishing damages if you did in fact cause damage to the carpet.

Here is a calculation from another website that helps explain the carpet deal:

Quote:

---

CALCULATING THE ACTUAL COST OF CARPET DAMAGE
One common method of calculating the deduction for replacement prorates the total cost of replacement so that the tenant pays only for the remaining useful life of the carpet the tenant has damaged or destroyed.
For example, suppose a tenant has damaged beyond repair an 8 old carpet that had a life expectancy of ten years, and that a replacement carpet of similar quality would cost $1,000. The landlord could properly charge only $200 for the two years’ worth of life (use) that would have remained if the tenant had not damaged the carpet.

ORIGINAL COST OF CARPET $1,000
Expected life of carpet 10 years
Depreciation charge ($1,000 / 10) $100 per year
Age of carpet 8 years
Carpet Life Years Remaining 10 years - 8 years = 2 years
Value of 2 years Carpet Life Remaining 2 years * $100 per years = $200

---

the one thing I would change from that is rather than calculating using the original cost, you will likely find judges that will use the cost of the replacement carpet (but it does have to be of similar quality as the original)

So, rather than calculating a dollar amount such as they have, calulate a percentage of what remained. Then multiply that by the cost of the replacement carpet and you have your damages.

Quote:

---

They had some holes which I filled with carpeter's putty; to finish the job it needed to be painted. Again, my question has to do with the expected lifetime of paint. After EIGHT years shouldn't something have to be painted regardless of how much dirt I put there?

---

Not necessarily. but you will have to determine what is considered the life expectancy for the paint. In the link I posted, they speak of 2-3 years as expected life of paint. As such, you would not owe anything for the painting as it had outlived it's expected life.

Quote:

---

How is normal lifetime determined under CA or does the small claims judge "wing it"?

---

it depends on what the life expectancy actually is. From what I have found, 10 years does appear to be a commonly used number (for the carpet)

Quote:

---

What is the consequence that he took 28 days to return my deposit and did not include any receipts?

---

from what I read, nothing.

so, I have not found anything that gives any specific times for life expectancy for the paint or the carpet, only suggestions. What that means is the LL might be able to argue regardless of the age of the paint or carpet, if it were not for the damages you caused, he would not have needed to replace or paint. IF he can convince a judge of that, it will cost you more.

Thanks thanks thanks!

I think my chances are good enough to go ahead and sue.

In that link you gave me, I discovered that CA Supreme Court determined a renter must be returned the entire security deposit if the landlord does not provide a refund AND itemized receipts within 21 days. If he fails either, I get it all back. And he failed spectacularly.

However, the same link said it is not always an easy case because the judge may be sympathetic about damages and back rent. I don't owe any back rent. I did damage a window and a tablecloth. To me, those are the only two legitimate items. I admitted to the landlord I damaged the window and tablecloth; but he didn't provide me with an estimate or receipt within 21 days so too bad for him.

I suspect the dents in the carpet are permanent because it was such a cheap carpet. I realize that dents usually come out; however, these looked really bad. The carpet looked totally crushed.

I do not have a photograph of the entire carpet; just a close-up to show it was a cheap carpet.

One reason I suspect I will fare well in court is that he is a very sloppy person and finds it difficult to grasp things like "depreciated value." He will probably come to court completely unprepared.

-Mike

best of luck. Given that this is most likely small claims court, you generally do not have a lot to lose by at least taking it to court. In other words, it doesn't hurt that much to try, even if you lose.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

best of luck. Given that this is most likely small claims court, you generally do not have a lot to lose by at least taking it to court. In other words, it doesn't hurt that much to try, even if you lose.

---

I suppose the landlord could countersue and I could be out some money, if the judge finds that damages were even greater than $500. That would not be fun.

Also, it would not be that great if I only recover $100 or less. Not really worth it for that.

So there is a small risk, but my feeling is that I am most likely to win back at least $200, so I will go ahead.

Quote:

---

Quoting mike1127

---

I suppose the landlord could countersue and I could be out some money, if the judge finds that damages were even greater than $500. That would not be fun.

Also, it would not be that great if I only recover $100 or less. Not really worth it for that.

So there is a small risk, but my feeling is that I am most likely to win back at least $200, so I will go ahead.

---

My gut feeling is you should get the whole $500 back. I'm a landlord, and I find good carpeting last about 5-10 years, and at 8 years, that's about it. Paint jobs are good for 5 years.

This is aside from the fact he did not detail the deductions which he should. You should go to small claims ASAP.

I can't speak directly to Landlord Tenant law in your state, but examine the statute for wording like, "If the LANDLORD is in breach of this requirement, TENANT shall be entitled to not more than twice the amount of the actual damages.". Actual damages in your case are somewhere in the neighborhood of $500.00. That is the amount which your landlord unlawfully withheld from your security deposit, by not returning the unused portion of your deposit within the allotted time frame with the required itemization and receipts.

If your state's Landlord Tenant law has similar wording, you may be entitled to more than $500.00.

Good luck!

Thanks everyone.

I had an e-mail exchange with my landlord and he said that he does not have itemized values. He hired someone to fix up everything -- window, painting, carpet, some work in the bathroom with rusty fixtures, and many other things. This person presented him with a single bill of $1350. My landlord said that he believes that I am really the one who should pay for the entire $1350, but he said he was being generous by "only" deducting $500. He does not understand things like depreciated value. He seems to think that the tenant moving out is responsible for the entire job of "making everything look nice for the next tenant." Even though the carpet he installed was much more valueable than the original carpet, and the value of the original had depreciated to nothing anyway. He also did not understand that the law requires him to provide itemized values and receipts. And he flagrantly disregarded the 21 day limit.

He also said something bizarre. In response to my pointing out he broke the law --- "You will be wasting your time to sue. Law is one thing, court is another."

He apparently does not grasp that court is about applying the law. :wallbang: