In Nebraska, the landlord is required to give back the security deposit (or an itemized list) within 14 days. Does that mean 14 days after the lease ends? Or do you have to send a letter, and then after they receive the letter its 14 days? My wife lived in an apartment and the lease ended May 20th, and we haven't seen the security deposit yet. Nor has her roommate.

Thanks

It should be 14 days after the lease was terminated or the landlord regained possession. When did she turn over the keys?

It's 14 days from the time the tenant turns over possession of the apartment to the landlord. Most of the time that is determined by when the tenant returns the keys.

She turned over keys prior to the 20th. The bad thing is she didn't take pictures or anything because her roommate still had a lot of stuff to get out of the apartment. I just found this though...

Nebraska Revised Statutes (http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/legaldocs/view.php?page=s7614016000)

"Upon termination of the tenancy, property or money held by the landlord as prepaid rent and security may be applied to the payment of rent and the amount of damages which the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant's noncompliance with the rental agreement or section 76-1421. The balance, if any, and a written itemization shall be delivered or mailed to the tenant within fourteen days after demand and designation of the location where payment may be made or mailed."

Does that mean she had to have given them written notice right away? She did give them the forwarding address right away, but no written demand for the money.

Did the roommate get it maybe? Were both names on the lease?

From the statute you quoted it would appear that she would have to demand an accounting and that's when the 14 days starts.

The roommate didn't get it either, no. The landlords became very shady the last 6-8 weeks of the lease. My wife and her roommate even paid for the whole month of May and were later told they had to be out by the 20th. They didn't get proper 30 day notice either. And they were told they would get rent back for the 11 days in May they paid for and didn't live there. It was kind of one of those things, "I don't want to deal with it" as it wasn't a whole lot of money, but it would sure be nice to get that money back at this point.

According to the Nebraska Landlord/Tenant handbook (Landlord_Tenant Handbook (http://www.nebls.com/landlord_tenant.htm#13.%20If%20you%20want%20to%20g et%20your%20security%20deposit%20back%85)) the landlord must return the deposit within 14 days after the tenant requests it in writing and provides an address. So I suggest that your wife or her roommate sends a letter immediately (by certified mail) requesting that the deposit be returned and providing an address to send it to.

OK, that's what I thought. I just ran across something this morning that made it seem it was 14 days after the termination of the lease. Thanks guys!

Ask for the 11 days back as well.

The balance, if any, and a written itemization shall be delivered or mailed to the tenant within fourteen days after demand Hello trey:

I was about to suggest that demand has to be made first, but you found it.

I think it's a shame that some state legislatures require a demand letter first. Wouldn't you think these legislators KNOW that a tenant wants his deposit back without having to say so in writing??

Of course, if you're of a class who are mostly landlords, then I can see why you would make it a legal requirement. I'm curious, however. If you're from that class, does it make you proud that you maintain your status by ripping off tenants??

I think it does, and I think you ought to me ashamed of yourselves!!

excon

I'm guessing that the Nebraska legislature did it that way because they know that a huge number of tenants skip out on paying the rent for the last month, letting the landlord take it from the deposit.

Hello again, Lisa:

Nope. I'm not buying it. Certainly the law could be written so that a landlord could apply the deposit to outstanding rent BEFORE he returned it. Indeed, that's how states that don't rip off tenants do it.

Therefore, the ONLY reason for that requirement that I can see, is to enrich landlords at the expense of their legally naïve tenants.

excon

I don't want to get into the whole situation, cause it would take 3 pages to tell about. But these landlords AND their lawyer seem to be preying on the legally naïve. I've been reading just about every post on this board for at least 2 months now and have gotten some pretty good knowledge about real estate and tenant law. The landlords even sent a letter that I'm pretty sure had illegal items in it as far as move out date, and money and whatnot. They made it sound like their lawyer had either written it or approved of it. I told my wife that the letter was not legal and that we should do something about it. But she just wanted to move, get married and not deal with it anymore. Anyway, the point is that they definitely seem to know tenants are naïve.

Hello again, trey:

You make my point for me.

YOU aren't a naïve tenant. YOU made sure that you weren't. That's why you're going to get your money back.

However, My problem is with the law, not those who take advantage of it.

Indeed, I've found a few laws that I've taken advantage of my damn self. Why wouldn't I? You should too - and you are. So too, should your landlord.

If you were a landlord in your state, and the law said that you had to wait till you received a letter before you sent the deposit back, would you send your deposits back anyway, even if you didn't get a letter? I'll bet you wouldn't - and you shouldn't.

The law should make the playing field even - not favor one side over the other. Laws like the one we're discussing favors landlords, and I don't like it one bit.

excon

I have to agree with excon here. The way this law is worded is very pro-landlord and anti-tenant. To require the landlord to send an accounting costs the landlrod the price of a stamp and a few minutes of their time. By forcing the tenant to request the accounting, you are using the same type of thinking used by the opt out school of marketing.

I just put in an order with Amazon, there was a link where I could get free 2 Day shipping if I accepted a 30 day trial of Amazon prime. When I checked the link the deal was that after the 30 days, unless I cancelled I would be charged $79.99 for a year's membership. I immediately clicked No Thanks. Companies have made BILLIONS because people are inherently lazy and forget to follow up and cancel on time.

P.S. Rather than further hijack this thread, if anyone wants to further discuss this opt out vs opt in issue I suggest starting a new thread in the Marketing Forum (under Business & Careers).

Amen, excon!

My court date is in a few weeks. I am suing my former landlord for not returning my security deposit and other monies he owes me since vacating over 3 months ago. I had my "demand letter" written by my attorney and the guy still ignored my request. And he also failed to provide any list of damages.
I don't understand why landlords allow things to go this far? My former landlord has only made it worse for himself seeing that now I can sue him for double. I wonder if he thought his intimidation tatics would cause me to back down and let things slide. It only pissed me off. Where are the business ethics? It's not fair to tenants who act in good faith.

My former landlord has only made it worse for himself seeing that now I can sue him for double. I wonder if he thought his intimidation tatics would cause me to back down and let things slide.

Suing is only one part. I suspect this landlord knows he will lose in court, but doesn't think you will be able to collect because he's got his assets hidden.

Hey Pinky, That's kind of how my wife's situation was/is. The landlords were trying to screw her around so much that it really pissed me off. I told her we need to take a stand against them and put them in there place even though it wasn't that much money. She just wanted it to go away and be done with it. I'm sure that's the kind of attitude that some landlords count on to be able to keep the security deposits. We sent our certified (RRR) letter on Saturday. We're waiting to see what will happen...

Good Luck treyball! My landlord ignored my "demand letter" that I had written from my attorney. If I ever received a letter threatening a law suit from a lawyer I would probably piddle myself in fear. I guess some guys don't care. I find it insulting. I have since spoken to several former tenants and it looks as if my landlord has a track record of trying to avoid return of the security deposit. Now it's become more of principle for me than about the money. Crooked landlords need to be stopped. I don't know if my suit would stop him from preying on future tenants, but at least I'll know I put him in his place. That's enough justice for me. You and your wife should proceed with as your state allows. It's beyond stressful and time consuming, but there is a pay off in the end. The worst part is the wait.

Scott Gem, yes, trying to collect has been a concern for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord doesn't even show up to court since he know he may loose. Now, I know where he works. I believe he is the owner of the real estate office where he has his tenants mail their rent and conduct lease signings. At the very least I know that is his employer. I also have a list of the several banks he has used to cash my checks. Would I still need more information beyond banks and employment? I know he is not financially hurting as he lives in one of the most affluent cities in my state and owns several properties. Basically the guy is rich.

Scott Gem, yes, trying to collect has been a concern for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the landlord doesn't even show up to court since he know he may loose. Now, I know where he works. I believe he is the owner of the real estate office where he has his tenants mail their rent and conduct lease signings. At the very least I know that is his employer. I also have a list of the several banks he has used to cash my checks. Would I still need more information beyond banks and employment? I know he is not financially hurting as he lives in one of the most affluent cities in my state and owns several properties. Basically the guy is rich.

The richer they are they poorer they can appear to be. You say he is used several banks to cash your checks. That there is a clue. Generally, one doesn't do that. So the day after you win a judgement (at the latest) those accounts will be closed. Even though he may be the owner or an employee of that office, he probably doesn't get a salary that you can garnish. His income is probably so tied up and convoluted he may not know how much he has. And that's going to make it harder for you to attach it.

He is a sleeze and your predictions sound about right. That sucks. Well, I am a very determined person and will fight tooth & nail. But that still may not be enough. It makes me sick to know I may never see that money. Damn it.

**UPDATE: We sent a certified letter to the landlords demanding back the deposit and the prorated rent for 11 days of moving out early. They sent us a check for the prorated rent but said they were keeping the deposit. The reason they gave was "The lease also stated no pets, for which you had a cat, gives us the legal right to retain your deposit". (grammar in letter).

First of all, in Nebraska, the law says the landlord can't take more than 1/3 of a month's rent for a pet deposit (Nebraska Revised Statutes (http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/legaldocs/view.php?page=s7614016000)) and secondly, the cat thing went like this...

My wife and her roommate moved in to the place in Jan of 2006. They started moving stuff in slowly over a week and then moved in. Before they moved in, they had a cat. The landlord didn't get them the lease until 3 days after they moved in. They hadn't even seen it yet. Anyway, after reading over the lease they found it said no pets. They called the landlord to ask if they could make an exception. She said no. So, they promptly got rid of the cat (within a day or two, as soon as they could find a home for it) and signed the lease, thinking nothing else of it.

Fast forward to spring 2007... they are on a month to month lease. The roommate mentions to the landlords that they might be done in May because they are both graduating, but nothing was ever formalized or put in writing. Then in late April the landlords tell them they have to be out May 15th. The rent is due the 1st, so this is definitely not one full rental period. (They later gave them until the 20th, but still not a full rental period). The reason they gave to be out is because they claim my wife didn't pay rent for June, July and August of last year and that they had a cat. She DID pay them rent, they just lost the check. They admitted to the roommate that they do that on occasion. Unfortunately, my wife has never been very good about keeping her checkbook up-to-date, so she didn't notice they never cashed it. So, my wife got a letter from the landlords saying that she had to pay by the 20th claiming that since she didn't pay rent for those 3 months, that they have the right to give only 3 day notice of lease termination, instead of 30. Which, I'm pretty sure isn't legal (its a 3 day pay or quit right? We paid), but my wife didn't want to fight about it. So, we sent them a check for those 3 months of rent and had her moved out by the 20th.

Ok, so the questions are these... First, is it legal for them to keep the deposit for having a cat or for making "late" payments? What about the fact that they didn't say anything about the cat for a year and a half and the fact that the cat was only there for a day and caused NO damage? Or about the "late" rent for almost a year? (if they would've mentioned that it was late when it was late, she would've paid it then too) Are these even conditions for terminating a lease after so long? We don't have any proof that my wife DID pay them because of her not keeping a checkbook very well. All we have is a missing check number in her statements. In fact, I think she threw away most of the documentation when she moved because she was just happy to get out of there. So, we may not be able to prove the less-than-a-month-notice thing, but can we at least go after our deposit?

Here is the full text of the latest letter:

"Enclosed is the $XXX we will repay for the early out in May, however; as stated in your landlord/tenant lease agreement, 'deposit which will be retained by the landlord, to apply to any damage or loss other than ordinary wear occurring to said premises or equipment therein, or for unpaid/late rent, for failure to abide by the terms of this agreement.' The lease also stated no pets, for which you had a cat, gives us the legal right to retain your deposit."

I guess one other question as I was typing this: can they keep the deposit for late rent? Even though it wasn't technically late? And they state the reason for keeping it is the cat, not late rent.

Thank you so much for reading this LONG post!

Hello again, 3 balls:

No. Your deposit is not a prize to be claimed by the one who yells breech the loudest. It's a damage deposit. It's not there to make someone money. It's there to make them whole. IF your cat caused damage, and they can document the costs of repair, that money can be kept. But, not a dime more than that!

Sue 'em.

excon

I agree with what excon said, the purpose of a security deposit is primarily to secure against damages left when a tenant moves out. Many states do provide that the security can be also used against unpaid rent. But I doubt if any law states that it can be withheld because of any lease violation. Under the circumstances, I doubt if any court would find her in violation for having a cat for the few days it took to find it a home.

Second, To claim unpaid rent from a previous year as grounds for a lease violation would not stand up in court. Especially if your wife can show the cancelled checks or at least that the checks had been written. If they didn't inform her she was late, then she wouldn't be responsible. If they lost the checks, then all she has to do is replace them.

They would have had the right to give her a three day notice for non payment of rent, last summer, but not at this point.

So sue 'em.

I agree with what excon said, the purpose of a security deposit is primarily to secure against damages left when a tenant moves out. Many states do provide that the security can be also used against unpaid rent. But I doubt if any law states that it can be withheld because of any lease violation. Under the circumstances, I doubt if any court would find her in violation for having a cat for the few days it took to find it a home.

Second, To claim unpaid rent from a previous year as grounds for a lease violation would not stand up in court. Especially if your wife can show the cancelled checks or at least that the checks had been written. If they didn't inform her she was late, then she wouldn't be responsible. If they lost the checks, then all she has to do is replace them.

They would have had the right to give her a three day notice for non payment of rent, last summer, but not at this point.

So sue 'em.