I was living in a room of the landlord's home on a month by month basis. Unfortunately, I received notice of a job opportunity elsewhere mid-month (october). I notified my landlord that I was moving out by the end of the month (approximately 2 weeks) without being aware of the 30-day notice rule.

I had called my landlord 3 times after 3 weeks had passed and every time he did not answer or return my calls. (According to California Civil Code 950.5(k) the landlord must return security deposit within 3 weeks of tenant move out date).

I moved out on 10/30
The 3 week period ended on 11/21
And I did not receive my check until 12/7 (16 days beyond the grace period)

I was deducted ~$300 for not notifying the landlord 30 days in advance, but am I entitled to a full refund because the little that was supposed to be returned to me was not?

What is the penalty for returning security deposits late?

This is a grey area. On one hand the landlord seeming had to return the money by the 21st. On the other hand, you had to give him 30 days notice. So it might be construed by a court that the move out date was 30 days after notice.

Frankly, I think you got off lightly and trying to recover the $300 would not be worth the trouble it would take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monniw

I was living in a room of the landlord's home on a month by month basis. Unfortunately, I received notice of a job opportunity elsewhere mid-month (october). I notified my landlord that I was moving out by the end of the month (approximately 2 weeks) without being aware of the 30-day notice rule.

I had called my landlord 3 times after 3 weeks had passed and everytime he did not answer or return my calls. (According to California Civil Code 950.5(k) the landlord must return security deposit within 3 weeks of tenant move out date).

I moved out on 10/30
the 3 week period ended on 11/21
and i did not receive my check until 12/7 (16 days beyond the grace period)

I was deducted ~$300 for not notifying the landlord 30 days in advance, but am I entitled to a full refund because the little that was supposed to be returned to me was not?

What is the penalty for returning security deposits late?

---

You had to give a 30 day notice, thus your actual date to move out could not be any sooner than @ 11/15 assuming you gave notice on 10/15.

Thus your check does not have to come till 3 week after your official move out date ( you moved out 2 week before the 30 day notice, you official move out date is at the end of the 30 days.

You messed up and are trying to find some loophole to cheat the landlord out of his money.

He would not have had to get your money to you till @ 12/6
So you were paid within the legal guidelines

From what I've read, according to the California Civil Code 955.5(k) the tenant is liable to penalties up to $600 for not returning the deposit back on time.

I admit, I should have given 30 days notice, but I haven't read anything about the definition of "MOVE OUT DATE". The only thing that I have read is that it's 3 weeks after the day the tenant moves out and nothing about the 30 days notice.

My interpretation is that we are both in the wrong here. And I think it's only fair to negate both fines. If anything, I could demand $600. So I think the rest of my deposit is a reasonable request.

If the "move out date" is in question, please let me know if you have any resources that states the definition of this.

P.S. I'm kind of offended that someone would think I'm trying to "CHEAT" anyone out of their money. I am volunteering for a non-profit organization and during the time that I was without my security deposit, I had to financially compensate. I admitted that the fine was justified, but just because I was fined, doesn't mean that I can't explore my rights as a tenant. If both parties are at fault here, both parties should be fined. (which is what I'm trying to inquire about, not trying to "CHEAT" anyone).

If the law doesn't specify, then interpretation is left up to a judge. The standard for notice of moving is 30 days.

I don't see where the landlord was at fault here. He apparently interpreted the law the way Chuck and I are seeing it. You may not agree with it, a judge may not agree with it, but it's a supportable viewpoint.

According to "California Civil Code 1950.5: Uses of Security Deposit By Landlord" Section F

"(f) Within three weeks after the tenant has vacated the premises, the landlord shall furnish the tenant, by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of an itemized statement indicating the basis for, and the amount of, any security received and the disposition of the security and shall return any remaining portion of the security to the tenant."

I'm not quite sure if this can be interpretted as "30 days post notice of move out". "Vacated the premises" is pretty specific to physically moving out. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.

According to the California Tenants guide
http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/landlordbook/catenant.pdf (see pg 47)

To end a periodic rental agreement (for example, a month-to-month agreement), you must

give your landlord proper written notice before you move.

You must give the landlord the same amount of notice as there are days between rent

payments.176

This means that if you pay rent monthly, you must give the landlord written notice

at least 30 days before you move. If you pay rent every week, you must give the landlord written

notice at least seven days before you move.
If your rental agreement specifies a different amount of notice (for example, 10 days), then you
must give the landlord written notice as required by the agreement. 177

Therefore, you were required to give the landlord thirty days notice. Despite the fact that you physically moved, the landlord had the right to consider your occupancy up to 30 days from notice, since that's what you would owe in terms of rental. Since you were required, under the terms of the lease and CA law to pay rental up to 30 days from the notice, you could be considered in possession of the unit up until that date, so you did not vacate the premises, even if you physcially moved.

This is what the landlord's attorneys will argue and its more than likely that a judge will agree. You made the mistake by not giving sufficient notice. The landlord acted in a reasonable manner (IMHO) by not considering the lease terminated until 30 days from notice. What the landlord did was subject to interpretation, but it was not unreasonable so there was no clear violation of the law as there is in your actions.

Both Chuck and I have said the same thing to you in different ways and repeatedly. And you keep trying to to do an end run around the fact that you messed up. Give it up already.

First off, let's be clear that I have admitted to fault from the very beginning. I never once denied the fact that the fine against me was unjustified. I signed up to this website for advice, not to be prematurely judged for my actions. I surely hope that other forums and questions are not answered in the same manner mine has (and that is presumptuously and in a judging eye). I am not trying to “run around” my penalty. I feel that my security deposit was returned to me in an untimely fashion and am merely exploring my rights as a tenant.

I feel that I have asked perfectly reasonable questions that would not instigate the rude attitude the answers contain.

I resent the fact that you have both claimed that I am trying to cheat someone out of their money. I understand that the argument stated above is a reasonable one and I appreciate the efforts that you've put into finding that resource. But that is simply all you had to say. Stating that the landlord was not late in returning the deposit due to the above legal statement would have been sufficient. I really could do without your finger being shaken at me.

Well, all in all, I thank you for your input and will take it into consideration.

P.S. Considering the 30 days notice, my landlord was still late in returning my check.

The point you are missing is that I said that to you in my first response. In that response I told you the court would likely rule that the move out was 30 days from the notice. Chuck told you the same thing. In each subsequent response you kept trying to put the fault, at least partially on the landlord. And in each subsequent response I tried to get through to you that your position was erroneous.

So if my answers became judgemental as the thread progressed then I feel it was justified based on your continued attempts to get me to change my clearly stated and consistent position.

Your last note continues the theme of trying to shift responsibility, at least partially. We are now in the wrong for getting a bit exasperated when you keep arguing with the clear advice you were given. Initially you asked reasonable questions and were responded to with reasonable answers.

And no the L/L was not late. Since you received the notice on 12/7 it had to have been mailed on 12/6 or earlier which was within the time frame.

Actually, according to the "30 days notice" the notice was given on October 13th, which means the post 30 days would have been Nov. 12. Which in turn makes the 3 weeks to be on Dec. 3. And according to the law, the check and any receipts are to be in my hands by Dec. 3.

Regardless, the response to your first one had a different question, and that was the inpretation of what "move out date" was. Your 2nd response answered that question fine until you continued to become "exasperated".

I feel that I am a fair and logical person and I do not appreciate others passing judgement on me. I would never wish to rip off my landlord seeing that we had a respectable pleasant business agreement. I do not approve of actions of cheating in any way, so you can imagine how the claims made above about my motives could be offensive.

Interesting Read

Well, I apologize if I am inquisitive, but I thought that is what this website was about. I am quite disappointed in lack of patience and understanding on behalf of yours and Fr_Chuck's posts especially because you both have answered so many questions.

Anyway, I thank you for your time and resources. I will look into the matter further on my own volition.

You have to understand we can only go by what we see here. Your OP said that you moved out on the 30th giving approx 2 weeks notice. So we based our estimates on that.

So if you had a nice relation with the landlord, then why are you so adamant about going after him? You need to be a bit more objective and look at what you have said from a distance. You might better understand how it appears to us.

Like you said, the original post was very generic and not specific. So you should not have assumed that I was beyond the 21 days deadline. I was merely correcting an assumption you should not have made.

Again, I am NOT 'going after' anyone. If my check was returned to me in a timely manner, I would not be wasting my time trying to find the littlest detail in a civil code to try and "CATCH" my landlord. He didn't give me a copy of my lease when I know he's supposed to. I'm not "going after" him for that. If I had my check ON TIME with/without deductions, I would have said, "OH well" and moved on.

I feel that questioing the motives behind the question is not part of this website.

Like I said, you really need to take a step back and look at what you have said with more objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monniw

If my check was returned to me in a timely manner, I would not be wasting my time trying to find the littlest detail in a civil code to try and "CATCH" my landlord.

---

But the check not being returned in a timely manner was your INTERPRETATION and based on a mistake you made. And the fact tis hat you ARE looking for the "littlest detail" to catch your landlord. If you can't see that you are in denial.

You can feel whatever you want to feel about what is or isn't part of this website. But the people here who answer questions volunteer their time and expertise. We, therefore, have to right to deal with questions the way we see fit. Most of the time we are courteous and considerate of the askers. But, on occasion, some questioners need to get a wake up call and need to have a mirror held up to them.

I don't want to be redundant. A check being returned to me LATE (not sure if the term LATE can be misinterpretted, but in both situations it was returned AFTER 21 days of both MOVE OUT and 30 days notice).

"But the check not being returned in a timely manner was your INTERPRETATION and based on a mistake you made."

It wasn't based on anything other than the postage that USPS stamped on it (late). And if you please refer to the link I provided earlier, you will find proper etiquette on how to answer questions. I'm not naïve to the fact that there are rude people in his world, and I am grateful for whoever can offer their advice. If people chose to be judgemental and rude then sobeit.

It's interesting if you're wanting and willing to "donate and volunteer" your time, that you would be so gracious as to donate and volunteer your misguided and presumptuous judgement upon others as well.

Well, good luck with the rest of your hasteful so called 'advice' for others. I really hope you check out that link for the sake of other readers.

I am very familiar with the information at that link. I have had frequent discussions with the Admins of this site about what it says.

I have been a participant on this site for several years and I have been helping people at sites like this for over 20 years. Whatever Chuck and I said were reasonable conclusions based on the information YOU posted. You clearly don't have a full understanding of how sites like this one generally work. The people here answer questions the way they feel they should be answered based on the information offered. Sometimes the answers are harsher than others, sometimes they are not what the asker wants or expects to here. That doesn't diminish the accuracy or the value of that advice.

Since you have not taken my advice to review what you have said objectively, there seems to be little more to say.

And I quote the website itself, "If you can't say something nice to or about another member, then don't say it at all."

I have thanked and stated my gratitude for your time and input. I have read and taken into account the resources you have put forth. The website's concept is quite simple, it's put into a 1, 2, 3 step picture for simplicity. What you don't seem to understand is that advice can be given in a manner that is not offensive. People call this being polite.

Perhaps there is a question on this website that you should look up that pertains to manners, politeness, and etiquette.

Hello mon:

Different people have different views regarding what is and is not impolite. I think they confuse political correctness with politness. I tell people what they don't want to hear - and not usually in a very politically correct manner.

I am NOT warm and fuzzy. I AM polite. But, because I am direct, people think it's impolite. I'll live.

Scott and the Padre are a hellofa lot politer than me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monniw

and i quote the website itself, "If you can't say something nice to or about another member, then don't say it at all."

---

As I indicated I have had many discussions with the admins about thosae GUIDELINES (and they are guidelines not rules). The fact of the matter is, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Plus I maintain, I did not say anything about you only about YOUR actions as related by YOU in this instance. And that's what you refuse to see and acknowledge.

I'll use a specific and frequent example:

Q: How do I download Windows for free?
A: You can't, that would be software piracy or theft and illegal.

Have I called the asker a thief? No! I've restricted my comments to scenario posed by the asker.

Based on your defensive posts, you are not reading what you want to read. It is unlikely that a judge will give you and additional $600 since you were wrong to begin with.

excon: I agree. Politeness is relative. I left my original post generic because I did not want to get into specifics and write a lengthy post. Therefor I expected a generic answer back. I took into account ScottGem's first post and then asked another question. Which was, what is the definition of "move out date" which is a simple enough question that would generate yet again, a simple answer.

I just think that ScottGem could have used a little more discretion and held his own opinions about my situation to himself since he did not and does not understand fully what my situation is. That is all.

Cvillecpm: Please note that I am not requesting a full penalty of $600. I feel that since both my landlord and I are at fault in two different ways, it would be fair to penalize him as much as he has me (since the law says, "Up to $600").

The first penalty (failure to notify 30 days) is taken care of. It's done. I have accepted responsibility and have paid it. THe second that is in question is a separate penalty (late return of security deposit). I don't understand why one law would be used and not another just because one was already implemented. All laws (protecting both the landlord and the tenant) should be excercised.