I moved out of the apartment and on the 22nd day I get a letter asking for more time to evaluate the damages. According to CA law the landlord must either refund the deposit or give an itemized deduction. Now, on the 28th day, I received a huge amount for cleaning and damages. I have already acknowledged some damages to the landlord in writing. But since they did not have an itemized deduction within the 21 days, can I sue them in small claims court? I have already demanded a full refund but instead got the huge bill with all estimates for damages and repairs.

But since they did not have an itemized deduction within the 21 days, can I sue them in small claims court.Hello gal:

You CAN. The ONLY issue is the 21 days. He missed it. He may be liable for treble damages.

excon

PS> (edited) I was wrong about treble damages, but right, of course, about everything else. (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml)

Sorry I didn't look it up in the first place.

[The landlord] may be liable for treble damages.

But probably could counter-claim for actual (not tripled) damages.

So it work out like this:

If $X = amount of the deposit;

OP should be entited to

3 x X = amount due OP

(minus)LL's damages.

Yes, even so still demand I pay for such terrible charges. But I am going by the 21 day rule in CA. They did not give any itemized or estimates within the 21 days. I moved out within a 2 weeks notice due to mold issues, with the approval of the landlord. They have yet to conduct the mold inspection. I believe they are acting in bad faith. They did that to another tenant who sued them in court and got half the deposit back.

...
They have yet to conduct the mold inspection. I believe they are acting in bad faith. They did that to another tenant who sued them in court and got half the deposit back.

If you moved out, how do you know, or care about, whether they have since checked for mold?

Well in their itemized estimates, they said that the mold inspection has not been done and further damage charges will be assessed. The landlord is really reaping tenants. One should see their estimates to understand.

Well in their itemized estimates, they said that the mold inspection has not been done and further damage charges will be assessed. The landlord is really reaping tenants. One should see their estimates to understand.

Oh. I see. They are threatening to charge you for the mold.

I don't know that mold is generally a tenant's fault, unless the tenant has left standing water in the carpets or something. I'm thinking it is often caused by a problem with the A/C, a leaking roof, or something that was the LL's responsibility.

Yes it is LL's responsibility. We have informed before and they said they can't do anything while we stayed there. Silly us, did not investigate much on mold, until recently. Well, they are acting in bad faith and will reap as much as they can. The mold is the heater tank area which has spread to the walls outside and also in the toilet. What a nice LL huh?

So you are saying not for triple? If they acted in bad faith then yes.

Hello gal:

You CAN. The ONLY issue is the 21 days. He missed it. He may be liable for treble damages.

excon

PS> (edited) I was wrong about treble damages, but right, of course, about everything else. (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml)

Sorry I didn't look it up in the first place.

The way I read the information provided at the link above, since the landlord did not provide an estimate for the cost of repairs within 21 days, the landlord is not entitled to retain any of the deposit regardless of whether there were damages caused by the tenant beyond reasonable wear and tear.

So the OP can sue for the return of the entire deposit.

The issue of whether damages can be trebled depends on if the court decides that the landlord's failure to provide an estimate within 21 days was in bad faith.

... the landlord is not entitled to retain any of the deposit regardless of whether there were damages caused by the tenant beyond reasonable wear and tear.
...

Sure, but assuming the LL can't keep any part of the deposit, the LL may still be able to recover for damages.

Sure, but assuming the LL can't keep any part of the deposit, the LL may still be able to recover for damages.Hello again, lawyer:

In California, if a landlord doesn't respond within the 21 days specified by law, he waives his right to recover.

excon

Hello again, lawyer:

In California, if a landlord doesn't respond within the 21 days specified by law, he waives his right to recover.

excon

What Excon said.

Hello again, lawyer:

In California, if a landlord doesn't respond within the 21 days specified by law, he waives his right to recover.

excon

Maybe you had better read the statute (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1). The security and penalty aside, it doesn't say anything about waiving the right to recover damages.


"1950.5. (a) This section applies to security for a rental agreement
for residential property that is used as the dwelling of the tenant.
....

(j) ...
This subdivision does not preclude a successor in interest from
recovering from the tenant compensatory damages that are in excess of
the security received from the landlord previously paid by the
tenant to the landlord.
...
(l) The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord'
s successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in
violation of this section, or the bad faith demand of replacement
security in violation of subdivision (j), may subject the landlord or
the landlord's successors in interest to statutory damages of up to
twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages.
..."

The portion of the statute that you quoted appears to apply only to a landlord's successor in interest and does not appear to apply to the OP's situation.

In addition, excon's assertion that the landlord waives the right to damages is based on case law, specifically Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738, 745.

Okay it is a 2 bedroom apartment of about 800sq ft. And they had cleaning quotes from 3-5 maid services for cleaning the place and the appliances. When in real, while I lived there for about 6 years, they only got their daughter and son in law to clean the apartment ( those that got vacant) except for contractors to change new carpets. Carpets were not changed when we moved in, they are saying the carpet damage will cost us $700!! I mean if the judge sees their charges, I think they will lose! I was waiting all this days to see if they are going to come back with more damages ( as in the mold situation) but nothing, so I am planning to start my claim. Does anyone think, they will counter sue me and make me pay for their outrageous charges? Thank you all for your kind advice.

...
In addition, Excon's assertion that the landlord waives the right to damages is based on case law, specifically Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738, 745.

Apparently you didn't read the case (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11612618167663359827&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). Because it holds that the LL can recover damages.


"...
We conclude that a good faith failure to comply with section 1950.5, subdivision (f), does not bar a landlord from recovering damages for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning, and ...
...
For the reasons stated, we conclude that a landlord who has failed in good faith to take advantage of the summary nonjudicial deduct-and-retain procedure allowed under section 1950.5, subdivision (f), may recover damages for unpaid rent, repairs and cleaning (§ 1950.5, subd. (e)) in a subsequent judicial proceeding provided that he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he has suffered such damages and that the amount claimed is reasonable ..."


The portion of the statute that you quoted appears to apply only to a landlord's successor in interest and does not appear to apply to the OP's situation. ...

True. But as stated in Granberry, section 1950.5, subdivision (f) does apply. Unfortunately, the way it is worded is not as clear. The two subsections are saying the same thing, albeit inartfully so in subdivision (f)

I apologize, not too familiar with legal terms, but based on the 21 days, the LL has to give the itemized deduction within 21 days if not, tenant can fight for the initial deposit back. But since they will not, instead came back with itemized deduction of charges, and I take then to claims court and if I can proof the "bad faith" am I entitled to 3 times the deposit or can they still charge me the charges they claim, or will the judge view and make a decision? Thank you again for the kind advice.

Apparently you didn't read the case (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11612618167663359827&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). Because it holds that the LL can recover damages.


"...
We conclude that a good faith failure to comply with section 1950.5, subdivision (f), does not bar a landlord from recovering damages for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning, and ...
...
For the reasons stated, we conclude that a landlord who has failed in good faith to take advantage of the summary nonjudicial deduct-and-retain procedure allowed under section 1950.5, subdivision (f), may recover damages for unpaid rent, repairs and cleaning (§ 1950.5, subd. (e)) in a subsequent judicial proceeding provided that he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he has suffered such damages and that the amount claimed is reasonable ..."


Apparently you failed to notice that the Court required a good faith failure to comply. If the OP presents the information in court that she provided here I can't see any way a judge will determine that the landlord acted in good faith.

I apologize, not too familiar with legal terms, but based on the 21 days, the LL has to give the itemized deduction within 21 days if not, tenant can fight for the initial deposit back. But since they will not, instead came back with itemized deduction of charges, and I take then to claims court and if I can proof the "bad faith" am I entitled to 3 times the deposit or can they still charge me the charges they claim, or will the judge view and make a decision? Thank you again for the kind advice.

It's my opinion that a judge will grant you triple damages if you can show that the landlord did not act in good faith. Gather as much proof as you can. Bring copies of everything you ever put in writing such as letters or emails to the landlord. Bring every picture you have. It really depends on what type of judge you get and the type of day they're having. But CA law is very tenant-friendly and I think you have a very good shot.

Thank you again. I have my email correspondence to the management company where I showed pictures of the mold and with the LL's permission, I was allowed to move out ASAP with no need for 30 days notice. And I will also have a old tenant who brought the LL to court for her deposit, because she was charged too much for damages. The court awarded her half the deposit back as she had the estimates within 21 days. I am waiting for a few more days to see if they will come up with more charges for the mold issues on me, if not I will file the claim. Besides my previous LL will be giving me a copy of my deposit return and a letter stating that I was a good tenant and returned his place back clean. I hope I get at least my original deposit, which is all I care. But because the LL is so greedy and in my believe has acted in bad faith, I would like to sue them for triple damages. Thank you everyone for the kind advices and help in understanding my situation.

Guess what? I send a certified mail to the management company on the 22nd day demanding a full refund of my deposit. Today that certified mail got returned. They did not even want to accept a certified mail from me! So I think I stand a better chance that the management company/ LL acted in BAD FAITH! I think I have followed the law to my best here. Please advice.

Guess what? I send a certified mail to the management company on the 22nd day demanding a full refund of my deposit. Today that certified mail got returned. They did not even want to accept a certified mail from me! So I think I stand a better chance that the management company/ LL acted in BAD FAITH! I think I have followed the law to my best here. Please advice.

If I were in your position I would go to the courthouse on Monday and file a lawsuit for the return of the deposit.

Yes I will! Just waiting for the return of my certified mail, gather all my documentation together and will be on my way to file the claim. I will update all of you on my victory! Thank you again for all your kind advice. This is a nice help board!