When Must Security Deposits Be Returned to a Tenant

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

Hello,

I was required to give a 30 day notice before moving out of my rental unit in CA. I did that, but moved out a week earlier. Because I gave my notice on the 7th of the month, the landlords said they would take the last week out of my deposit. Even though I didn’t live there for that week, I understand they can legally do that. I left the place spotless, btw, and even made repairs out of my own money that they never reimbursed me for.

So my question is two-part:

1. In CA they have 21 days to return a deposit. But is that 21 days from the actual move out date, or 21 days from the end of the 30 day notice? If it’s the former, then they have gone over the 21 day limit already and are ignoring my emails regarding the deposit.
   
2. I understand that if they do not provide the deposit or a list of deductions within 21 days, they are obligated to pay the entire amount back without any deductions. So in that case, would they also be required to return the week of rent they said they would deduct from my deposit?

I am preparing to take them to court now and I just need to know what I am allowed to collect from them.

Thanks!
AX

the 21 days is from the time you moved.


the LL can file a counterclaim for unpaid rent and damages, even if he has not followed the law in returning the deposit or giving a list of deduction to the deposit and returning the remainder within that 21 days.

So, sue for your entire deposit and if the LL files a counterclaim, deal with it. Maybe you will get lucky and he won't file a counterclaim and you will get your entire deposit back.

Thank you for that. They charged me $1900 deposit and they're just flat out ignoring my requests for a refund. It's a pretty big chunk of change and they appear to have no intention of paying any of it back. I'm not exaggerating when I say I left the place in better condition than when I moved in. And I paid my rent on time every month. It's frustrating to be treated this way after how well I cared for their home. But, I digress...

Another question: I moved out of state. Can I include court fees, travel costs and lost income from work in this suit? I have to travel over 1000 miles to take them to small claims court over this. That means a rental car, time off work, hotel, etc.

Quote:

---

Quoting axy

---

Another question: I moved out of state. Can I include court fees, travel costs and lost income from work in this suit? I have to travel over 1000 miles to take them to small claims court over this. That means a rental car, time off work, hotel, etc.

---

You can ask for anything. You will be awarded the amount of deposit due you. You will not get any of the other expenses.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You can ask for anything. You will be awarded the amount of deposit due you. You will not get any of the other expenses.

---

How can you be sure I would not be reimbursed for expenses? I would end up spending half of what they owe me just to take them to court to be paid money they owe. That's not fair at all.

because those expenses are not your damages. They are merely the cost of doing business. Think about this: why should a defendant be liable for your expenses when you chose to move where you moved to?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

because those expenses are not your damages. They are merely the cost of doing business. Think about this: why should a defendant be liable for your expenses when you chose to move where you moved to?

---

Because they are illegally withholding my deposit. I would not have to take time off work, travel across two states and sue them to collect if they had paid it back as they were legally obligated to do. Court is about making a person whole, so I don't think I should have to pay those costs when they are the cause of this inconvenience.

Also, they gave me notice to move, I didn't chose to move out. They are the owners of the house and want to move back into it.

you can always ask but you need to have legal support for the request.

courts do not generally award costs such as you speak of unless the other parties actions are especially egregious or if the law specifically allows for the costs. I saw nothing in the statutes about allowing for the costs and depending on why the LL is retaining the deposit, it may not be particularly egregious.

Quote:

---

I was required to give a 30 day notice before moving out of my rental unit in CA. I did that, but moved out a week earlier. Because I gave my notice on the 7th of the month, the landlords said they would take the last week out of my deposit

---

Quote:

---

Also, they gave me notice to move, I didn't chose to move out.

---

which is it?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you can always ask but you need to have legal support for the request.

courts do not generally award costs such as you speak of unless the other parties actions are especially egregious or if the law specifically allows for the costs. I saw nothing in the statutes about allowing for the costs and depending on why the LL is retaining the deposit, it may not be particularly egregious.





which is it?

---

They gave me a 60 day notice to vacate because they wanted to move back into the property. I didn't want to stay for 60 days at that point, so I turned around and gave them a 30 day notice.

It just doesn't make any sense that I would not be awarded all of these additional costs that are 100% their fault. Say my deposit were less money and suing them to collect would make me break even. In that case I wouldn't even bother trying to collect. That would mean there's a loophole that landlords can exploit to steal a tenant's deposit. I don't think a court would act so unfairly.

I sent them an email stating that I was beginning the process of suing them for 1) my deposit back in full since they did not abide by the 21 day law, and 2) for all expenses necessary to carry out the lawsuit. They overnighted my deposit in full the same day I sent the email :)

Quote:

---

Quoting axy

---

It just doesn't make any sense that I would not be awarded all of these additional costs that are 100% their fault. Say my deposit were less money and suing them to collect would make me break even. In that case I wouldn't even bother trying to collect. That would mean there's a loophole that landlords can exploit to steal a tenant's deposit. I don't think a court would act so unfairly.

---

I'm glad you got your money back.

Your above comments reminded me of a conversation I had with one of my tenants some years back. He moved out to move back to Ireland, and was in a hurry to get his security back. In my case, I'm not normally critical of my tenants in the way they leave me the apartments, because we clean and paint anyway, with the painters plastering over holes as part of the job, so I'm not really out any more money. I gave him back the full deposit right after the move out inspection.

So he got to telling me a story of another countrymen of his, who left the apartment in even worse shape, and when the landlord threatened to withhhold the security, he countered threatened the LL that he'll sue for the deposit, and also his trip all the way back from Ireland. Wow, a free vacation!!

Anyway, the LL not knowing any better caved, thought that was the law, and refunded the full amount. Well, that's not the way the law really works, but it looks like the way YOU thought the law should work. If true, obviously a loophole for the tenant. But what a big loophole where a LL would get screwed everytime the tenant ever moves far away.

What JK indicated is the way the law currently works, which makes more sense to me.