I live in the state of New Jersey, and completed a lease in an apartment complex in may 2009. I was not required to put down a security deposit upon move-in, spare a 150$ "pet fee" for our cat.

We recently received a letter (by regular mail, not certified or the like) explaining that we had 10 days to pay 600$ for the replacement of the carpets in the unit or they would "submit information that would damage" our credit history. Based on the date of the letter, we were overdue by 3 days at the time we read it.

1. with no deposit, can my landlord require me to pay 600$ for the replacement of the units carpets? I was under the (false?) impression a landlord could not collect an amount in excess of the security deposit.

2 .If any damages were assessed as the result of pet damage, would the 150$ pet fee be applied to those damages? It was a non-refundable type thing, but I wouldn't understand why it would be charged if it wasn't to cover possible damages.

3. Do they need to provide proof of the damage they are alleging such as what specific damage with receipts to prove its cost? They only said "damaged carpet" when referring to what was damaged, or how it was damaged.

4. I thought a landlord was required by law to be minimalist in their repairs - by which I only mean that they can't say "well since a tile is cracked, I'm replacing all of the tiles in the bathroom" instead they should only do the minimum necessary to properly and adequately repair the damages.

The unit had brand new carpet upon move-in, though we later discovered that there was a pre-existing urine stain in the hallway underneath the carpet. We discovered it when we got the carpets wet by spilling water. The water apparently lifted the smell enough for our cat to notice and counter to his usual behavior he began spraying that location, and only there.

We knew that the hallway had a urine stain from our cat, however this area of the carpet was sectional, and could be replaced without affecting any of the rooms adjacent. Had they charged something more like 150$ I would probably have paid it without even a second thought, but the hall is no larger than 3' x 5' in size. That small area certainly does not warrant a 600$ price tag. It seems as though they are charging for the complete and total replacement of the carpets, which are otherwise only suffering from wear and tear.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

1. Yes it's a false impression. A landlord can collect on any damages done to the unit beyond normal wear and tear. They would, however, have to prove the damage and that the $600 was a reasonable charge.

2. Yes, the $150 would have to be applied to the total charges for damages.

3. See answer to 1. However, if they have a bill from a carpet installer and a deposition stating that the carpets were damaged to the point they needed replacement, that would be sufficient proof.

4. I'm not sure it if law, but generally a court would not allow them to pad damages like that. But then you would have to prove they did. Since the landlord is employing the contractor who does the repair they will probably testify it was necessary. For example, maybe the tiles were no longer available so the only way to fix it would be to replace them all.

If you don't pay, they sue you. If the judge believes their workmem you lose.