I am a landlord in the state of north carolina- I charged a $350 non refundable pet deposit to tenants that had 3 cats- they moved out - there was damage to one room of carpeting- from coffee and excessive wear- the tenant says that the cat spilled the coffee- I deducted from his security deposit the amount to cover replacing the carpet - I depreciated the amount because the house is 3 years old- the tenant is claiming that I should be taking the money from the non refundable pet deposit- my understanding is that the pet fee is just that- for the privilege of having cats in the house- it should not be used for the replacement of the carpet- am I correct?
Please advise
Thanks

Personally, I am with the tenant on this one. As I understand it, the landlord charges extra for having pets because of the potential damage that they can do. And I have paid some hefty non-refundable pet deposits in my time. So, if a landlord has X amount of money on top of the security deposit, and there are damages that are less than X, why should it come out of MY security deposit and not the pet deposit? In this case, if the tenant left the place pristine, the landlord is up 350 dollars. If there is $100 worth of damage, and that comes out of the pet deposit, the landlord is still making money off this deal over a tenant without pets. I don't know... taking it out of the security deposit instead of the pet deposit feels like double-dipping to me.

However, it may come down to what your lease says. And, you may want to consider revising your lease to be clear in this situation, so that the pet owner can make an educated decision about whether they want to rent from you or not.

Hello tsd:

I think you're getting the picture... You called it a "fee" in your question, yet you called it a "deposit" when you spoke about it.

I think what you called it in your lease IS germain. In my view, a deposit is something you get back if certain conditions are met. A fee is money you pay for something and never get it back.

If they think they paid a pet "deposit", I think they're entitled to their money back.

excon

Actually, I think it was probably disclosed as a non-refundable deposit. I've seen that wording often for pets in leases. And it doesn't appear that the tenants are actually asking for it back. They are just asking that it be applied to the damages first, and only having an amount over the pet deposit taken out of the security deposit.

There are two scenarios here. On the one hand it's convenient for the tenant to say that the coffee stain was caused by the pet, since there's no way of confirming it. And if the landlord accepts that then the repair money comes out of the pet deposit that was non-refundable, which the tenant already kissed goodbye when it was paid. And the tenant gets back the entire security deposit.

On the other hand, the landlord can get tough and say that pet deposits are for damage that can be shown to be caused by pets, such as cat urine stains or clawed molding. Then the landlord gets to deduct the repair costs from the security deposit and keep the entire pet deposit as well.

In the first scenario the landlord's property gets repaired at the tenant's cost and the tenant gets back all of their security. In the second scenario the landlord's property gets repaired, the tenant doesn't get their deposit back and on top of that the landlord makes an extra $350.

My opinion on the legality of the second scenario would depend on the exact wording of the pet deposit clause in the lease. If the clause details the specific types of damage to which it applies then the landlord would probably win this case in court. But my opinion on the morality of the second scenario is that it looks like the landlord is ripping off the tenant.

The first scenario allows both parties to walk away from the deal with fair treatment. The second scenario enriches the landlord at the expense of the tenant for no good reason.

I agree with Lisa (no surprise there) - I've seen leases with pet fees (which are just that, an additional one time fee if you have a pet). I've never quite understood how that isn't discrimination against pet owners or the purpose of such a fee but I have seen leases with that wording and some of them are actually available on line.

I don't know how other States' homeowners insurance works but I do have to notify my company of pets on the premises, including "dangerous breeds." Maybe in some States there's a surcharge and the pet fee covers it? I have no idea.

My leases have a clause which requires an additional deposit if you have a pet (obviously if there is no damage) but I don't call it a "pet deposit" - I have found that pets can cause damage above and beyond what the normal deposit covers. The lease simply says the deposit is $2 (give or take - !) and the other tenants (without pets) have a $1 deposit. I tell them that the amount is more than the non-pet tenants pay and why so there are no problems between tenants.

I am not sure how the lease OP refers to is written -

I have had one lease that actually was nice and spelled it out... I think it went something like "Pet deposit of 500, of which 200 is non-refundable to cover the cost of shampooing and flea treating the carpet." So the extra $300 is to cover potential damages, and would be refunded if there isn't any.

Also, if the landlord wants to make it a "fee" for having a pet, then I would include it as pet rent on a monthly basis rather than having it put down up-front as a deposit. The downside for the landlord there is that the tenant can stop paying it by removing the pet from the apartment.

Rule of thumb, don't sign a lease unless your interest are protected. Lease by nature are designed to give the leasor the edge, not to necessarily to protect the leasee (As or most contracts). If there landlord or property management really intend to be honest, there would not be wording that was obviously used to give the leasor the ability to take advantage of the leasee. If a lease said "non-refundable pet fee" that would leave no uncertain terms. The use of the term "non-refundable pet deposit" is intentionally misleading, so that the landlord has the ability to play down the fact that is a profit. I am all for protecting my property from damages, however, most deposits are close to if not equal to the 1st months rent. Which should be more than enough to cover pet damages or wear an tear. If a tenant or their pets do more damage than the deposit then odds are that the 350.00 additional cost won't cover.

The phrase "non-refundable deposit" is an oxymoron. I understand that the tenants in this case undestand that they don't get it back, but I suggest that you revise your lease template to use the expression "non-refundable pet fee".

If the lease says "Nonrefundable Pet Fee" then there is no question. It's a FEE, people. Landlords hate pets and if you insist on having one, it costs extra if you can even rent the desired place with a pet at all. Grow up!