Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Is a Tenant Entitled to Credit and Full Deposit if Returned After 21 Days

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

    I have a question about an unreturned security deposit and what I am entitled to.

    After vacating the property, I quickly received a final account statement (within a few days) that indicated I was due a partial refund of my deposit. However, it has been 40+ days since i moved and i have yet to receive a check. (I left a forwarding address in writing, which was how I received the final account statement in the first place).

    It is my understanding that under California Supreme Court ruling Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995), the landlord is no longer entitled to deduct any portion of the deposit because it has been more than 21 days.

    I intend to write the property owner for the full refund of my deposit. They deducted charges for cleaning, a small repair (which was identified on my pre-move-out inspection and I subsequently fixed -- so they should not have deducted it), and a few days of unpaid rent + associated utility charges. At the time I moved out, I also had a credit in my account (guess I overpaid my rent at some point). The amount that the statement said I was owed reflected the total of the credit ($100) and deposit ($500) minus the rent ($150) and cleaning/repair charges ($200).

    The fact that they have kept my money so long (plus didn't bother to reinspect the apartment to see that I had made the repair) to me represents bad faith.

    What I want to know is this:
    Am I entitled to the full amount of the Credit + Deposit?
    Because the 21 days have passed, do I have a claim only to the deductions for cleaning/repair? Or do I have a claim to the rent deduction too?

    I guess i'm just not sure how the law treats the credit (which isn't technically a deposit, right?) and the unpaid rent (it's listed as an allowable deduction in 1950.5, but seems to me like it might be treated differently than a repair).

    Help please?

    Thanks!

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

    Default Re: Is a Tenant Entitled to Credit and Full Deposit if Returned After 21 Days

    You can read a pretty thorough summary of security deposit law here. The following case attempts to explain Granberry:
    Quote Quoting 250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp. (USA) (2005), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296
    The controversy in Granberry arose under section 1950.5, the security deposit statute for residential leases. The issue was "whether a landlord who in good faith fails to comply with the requirements of this statute may nevertheless recover damages for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning in a subsequent judicial proceeding." (Granberry v. Islay Investments, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 741, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.) The landlords in Granberry owned or operated over 1,000 residential units, charged tenants an extra $100 for the first 31 days of occupancy, and never returned any part of that amount to the tenants. Approximately 10,000 tenants paid about $1 million in $100 first-month premiums, and a class of former tenants sued for return of those premiums on the ground that they were security deposits within the meaning of section 1950.5. Under section 1950.5 the landlord was required, within three weeks of the date the tenant vacated the premises, to provide the tenant with a written accounting for any portion of the security deposit the landlord retained; if the landlord failed to provide the accounting within this period the entire deposit had to be returned. The landlords in Granberry did not furnish the accountings, and it was determined that they had, in good faith, failed to return the first-month premiums as required by section 1950.5. The question presented in the case was whether the landlords 314 could nevertheless offset the premiums against damages for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning—liabilities against which security deposits could be applied under section 1950.5, subdivision (b). (See Granberry v. Islay Investments, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 742, fn. 3, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.)

    The court held that a landlord who has in good faith failed to return a security deposit as required by section 1950.5 can nonetheless recover damages for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning in a subsequent judicial proceeding. (Granberry v. Islay Investments, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 749-750, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.) The court reasoned that "the mere fact that the landlord has lost the right to take advantage of the summary deduct-and-retain procedure of section 1950.5, subdivision (f), does not lead to the conclusion that he has lost all right to claim damages for unpaid rent, repair, and cleaning, whether through setoff or otherwise." (Granberry, supra, at p. 745, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.) The tenants argued that "to allow the landlords to raise setoff as a defense would be inconsistent with the equitable principle that an individual should not profit from his own wrong, because landlords may use this defense to keep all or part of the security deposits they retained in violation of section 1950.5, subdivision (f)." (Id. at p. 747, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.) While the court "recognize[d] the importance of this equitable principle (see § 3517), and while [it did] not doubt that this principle may bar setoff on the particular facts of many individual cases, it does not justify an absolute bar to the right to a setoff in all cases." (Ibid.) The court observed in this regard that "a landlord that seeks setoff after good faith noncompliance with the procedures described in section 1950.5, subdivision (f), does not `profit from his own wrong,' because he cannot set off any damages he could not have recovered if he had complied with section 1950.5, subdivision (f)." (Id. at p. 748, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 889 P.2d 970.)

    We read this last statement, as does Sherwood, to mean that a landlord that in good faith violates the security deposit statute may offset against its damages only those amounts which it properly could have claimed of the security deposit in the first place.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Is a Tenant Entitled to Credit and Full Deposit if Returned After 21 Days

    So what happens when a landlord in bad faith violates the 21 days? Is he or she precluded from recovering anything?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Security Deposits: Notice of Defult Received, Tenant Broke Lease, is She Entitled to Her Deposit
    By Mrs ST in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 03:09 PM
  2. Security Deposits: Should a Deposit Be Returned to the Tenant who Paid it, or Split Between Tenants
    By DTP in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-03-2010, 09:40 PM
  3. Security Deposits: Landlord Returned Partial Deposit but No Itemized Letter and It's Past the 21 Days
    By Desprete in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 12:03 AM
  4. Security Deposits: Did Tenant Break Lease Entitled to Deposit
    By RTL44 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 09:57 AM
  5. Security Deposits: My deposit was returned, but after 90 days.
    By ryboto in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 11:31 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources