Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Default California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    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?

  3. #3

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    Quote Quoting mike1127
    View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,995

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    google scholar ...

  7. #7

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    540

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    Quote Quoting mike1127
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,995

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    Quote Quoting mike1127
    View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: California Supreme Court Decision Re 21-Day Rule

    Quote Quoting mike1127
    View Post
    ....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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 11:48 AM
  2. Kentucky Supreme Court Decision
    By ealexdixon in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 11:01 PM
  3. Sex Offenses: Recent Ohio Supreme Court Decision, Ohio vs. McConville – Case No. 2009-0893
    By goosey100 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 09:34 PM
  4. California Court Rule 4.210(B) Clause 2
    By jacklikesit in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 08:04 PM
  5. Search and Seizure: Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Cellphone Searches
    By jk in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-28-2009, 12:56 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources