Looknsee Photography wrote:
I just want to remind everyone that we've heard only one side of the story.

Okay...and...

I don't get why you keep coming back in the thread.

matt-h2 wrote:
Not true. Last I was aware, at least in CA, where you live, there are laws about deposits, as well as landlord access. Not sure about OP's situation. But as she mentioned, if it ends up in court (not that I am saying whether it should or not), there should be both a reasonableness test, as well as precedent.

This.^ there is a website here via government where they show what are both the tenants and land lord's rights. I'm sure that each rules vary from State to State and city to city. But there should be an online website per State showing the general laws.

La Lana  wrote:
I have done enough research to know that I don't have to have a lawyer to sue...and I can guarantee you they don't want to spend money on a lawyer either.

At the end of it, it will probably be a lot more then a 100 that they try to take, and it's illegal if it's wrong.  It's MY money.  I know for a fact they held money to fix things in the apartment that I am in now, and didn't fix them....that's stealing someone's money. 

Also, the way a landlord looks at wear and tear has to be different for families then it would a single person...otherwise it can be looked at as judging someone harsher because they have kids...which is discrimination based on familial status...which is illegal.

Not always true. You have to keep in mind who you're dealing with, and never assume anything. Example and proof in the pudding. Tenant here a few years ago, accidentally let out the land lord's cat outside of her gate twice. Yes twice, but it was an accident. She lost her mind and went off on him. He'd approached me about the incident. I had no comment for a couple of reasons. One was, he got comfortable with her. I didn't because I'd already peeped her out. And two, I'd sensed that he was a flunky for her, having him probe me. Back on topic, after she went off on him, he'd snapped on her and with good reason.

Instead of acknowledging that she was in the wrong, guess what happened? She tried to vacate him from the apartment, messed up his mail, where he told me that he'd lost a lot of it due to both theft, telling the post man that he no longer lives there and several other silly things. During their tenant/land lord battle, she pulled her lawyer into the equation. I was getting all types of calls from him, trying to get me to co-sign for her. "Fuck that." was what I'd said to myself and I was getting letters from them both, under my door. Long story short, when it was time to go to court, he had no one to support him, so he didn't show up. She had both her lawyer and neighbors there. People that had no fucking clue what was really going on. They just heard him going off with no understanding why. People are easily deceived like that.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Stop it.  Just stop it.  I am trying to help.

Having pictures is terrific.  My point is...
...  How do you expect the judge to reconcile the situation when you have photos
     and your landlord has different photos?
...  Do you have pictures of the unit's state when you moved in?  I bet your landlord
     does.

"Most of them are redone" ...  so what?  Was the landlord obligated to redo all the units?

Yes, taking false evidence could be a crime, but you are talking about a civil suit, and it is highly unlikely that criminal charges will arise from deliberations from a civil suit.  But "false evidence" is not so black in white.  "Before" and "After" pictures are not "false evidence", are they?  How do you intend to prove that your landlord's evidence is "false"?

Look -- enjoy your day in court.  Let us know if it comes out like you expect it to.  My guess -- if both parties are equally prepared, the judge will cut the baby in half.  However, if you make accusations that you can't prove (e.g. that the landlord discriminated against you based on your familial status), you might convince the judge to distrust you.

I think if the evidence is as Lana stated and the landlord comes in every month to inspect the judge is going to think that is more than a little excessive.

And I am sorry I don't know what gives a landlord the right to open my refrigerator.

That's bullshit in itself.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I just want to remind everyone that we've heard only one side of the story.

La Lana  wrote:
Okay...and...

I don't get why you keep coming back in the thread.

Because I am trying to provide the assistance you requested, but you are not hearing what I am saying.  You are frustrated.  I am frustrated.  My message is not being heard.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Stop it.  Just stop it.  I am trying to help.

Having pictures is terrific.  My point is...
...  How do you expect the judge to reconcile the situation when you have photos
     and your landlord has different photos?
...  Do you have pictures of the unit's state when you moved in?  I bet your landlord
     does.

"Most of them are redone" ...  so what?  Was the landlord obligated to redo all the units?

Yes, taking false evidence could be a crime, but you are talking about a civil suit, and it is highly unlikely that criminal charges will arise from deliberations from a civil suit.  But "false evidence" is not so black in white.  "Before" and "After" pictures are not "false evidence", are they?  How do you intend to prove that your landlord's evidence is "false"?

Look -- enjoy your day in court.  Let us know if it comes out like you expect it to.  My guess -- if both parties are equally prepared, the judge will cut the baby in half.  However, if you make accusations that you can't prove (e.g. that the landlord discriminated against you based on your familial status), you might convince the judge to distrust you.

hassanchop wrote:
I think if the evidence is as Lana stated and the landlord comes in every month to inspect the judge is going to think that is more than a little excessive.

And I am sorry I don't know what gives a landlord the right to open my refrigerator.

That's bullshit in itself.

Perhaps.  But like I said, we are only hearing one side of the story.  For all we know...
...  The landlord has given the tenant all appropriate notices of inspection;
...  The landlord is only visiting once a quarter, not once a month;
...  The tenant might be on probation from previous infractions;
...  Who knows?

The point is not what happened but what can be proved.  If you present a "he said; she said" situation to a judge, he is likely to do nothing for either party.  We've heard some of what the OP claims to have happened; we really don't know what she can prove, nor do we know what the landlord will be able to prove in response to the OP's claims.

I carefully selected my property manager, and if they are visiting one of my properties, I have high confidence that they have documented that they gave the appropriate notices. 

Look -- if you are a landlord, you are restrained by many laws & regulations, all of which tend to favor the tenant.  My property managers are constantly amassing documentation, including photographs, invoices, e-mails, letters, etc.  Most tenants I've met are not nearly as organized.

The OP asked for help, and I am providing it.  She doesn't like it, but I'm providing it nonetheless.  If she was my tenant, her apartment would never be entered without the appropriate notice, as required by law.  Each inspection comes with photographs & a form filled out (similar to the inspection forms one gets when one buys a house).  We have maintenance done by reputable handymen & contractors, any of whom can be an expert witness. 

Are there bad or "unruly" landlords?  Heck, yeah.
Are there terrible tenants?  Heck, yeah.
Do court cases go the way the tenant thinks they'll go.  NEVER.


P.S.  I tend to have my properties inspected once a year and before a move-in.  I don't think there is any regulation that says an inspector (who has properly notified the tenant) cannot open a refrigerator.  Indeed, I kinda want the older refrigerators to be inspected, to ensure that they are still performing properly.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I don't get why you keep coming back in the thread.
Because I am trying to provide the assistance you requested, but you are not hearing what I am saying.  You are frustrated.  I am frustrated.  My message is not being heard.

Maybe she feels that you are already disqualified by your mentality that tenants are responsible for general wear and tear.  They aren't in her state or ours.  I'd not rent from you either.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I just want to remind everyone that we've heard only one side of the story.

La Lana  wrote:
Okay...and...

I don't get why you keep coming back in the thread.

Because I am trying to provide the assistance you requested, but you are not hearing what I am saying.  You are frustrated.  I am frustrated.  My message is not being heard.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Stop it.  Just stop it.  I am trying to help.

Having pictures is terrific.  My point is...
...  How do you expect the judge to reconcile the situation when you have photos
     and your landlord has different photos?
...  Do you have pictures of the unit's state when you moved in?  I bet your landlord
     does.

"Most of them are redone" ...  so what?  Was the landlord obligated to redo all the units?

Yes, taking false evidence could be a crime, but you are talking about a civil suit, and it is highly unlikely that criminal charges will arise from deliberations from a civil suit.  But "false evidence" is not so black in white.  "Before" and "After" pictures are not "false evidence", are they?  How do you intend to prove that your landlord's evidence is "false"?

Look -- enjoy your day in court.  Let us know if it comes out like you expect it to.  My guess -- if both parties are equally prepared, the judge will cut the baby in half.  However, if you make accusations that you can't prove (e.g. that the landlord discriminated against you based on your familial status), you might convince the judge to distrust you.

Perhaps.  But like I said, we are only hearing one side of the story.  For all we know...
...  The landlord has given the tenant all appropriate notices of inspection;
...  The landlord is only visiting once a quarter, not once a month;
...  The tenant might be on probation from previous infractions;
...  Who knows?

The point is not what happened but what can be proved.  I carefully selected my property manager, and if they are visiting one of my properties, I have high confidence that they have documented that they gave the appropriate notices. 

Look -- if you are a landlord, you are restrained by many laws & regulations, all of which tend to favor the tenant.  My property managers are constantly amassing documentation, including photographs, invoices, e-mails, letters, etc.  Most tenants I've met are not nearly as organized.

The OP asked for help, and I am providing it.  She doesn't like it, but I'm providing it nonetheless.  If she was my tenant, her apartment would never be entered without the appropriate notice, as required by law.  Each inspection comes with photographs & a form filled out (similar to the inspection forms one gets when one buys a house).  We have maintenance done by reputable handymen & contractors, any of whom can be an expert witness. 

Are there bad or "unruly" landlords?  Heck, yeah.
Are there terrible tenants?  Heck, yeah.
Do court cases go the way the tenant thinks they'll go.  NEVER.

I have never had a landlord come into the premises that I was renting unless it was for repairs.

I have successfully sued a landlord and I have had landlords tried to keep my deposit - -the last one that did I had a little conversation with and they decided it was in their best interest to return my deposit.

There are a lot of slummy landlords out there. Personally I would rather deal with a good property management company but I don't have to deal with any of that anymore.

And I know that there a bad tenants too. No way would I put up with that kind of BS from any landlord. Unless you have good reason you are not coming the place I am paying to rent.

And you want to open my fridge we have a problem -- what's next -- a peek into my panty drawer?

I don't think so.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
if she's sending threatening letters, and you can prove she said she sends them to get you to do what she wants, then you should forward them to her bosses, and contact a lawyer. She is in violation of something I'm sure.

Check your state laws to see if you live in a "one party state".  If so, start recording conversations with the landlord as well.

If you live in a "one party state", conversations, including phone calls, can be recorded as long as at least one party involved in the conversation permits it.  Other parties do not have to be informed.  It varies state to state.

sdgillis wrote:
Maybe she feels that you are already disqualified by your mentality that tenants are responsible for general wear and tear.  They aren't in her state or ours.  I'd not rent from you either.

Fair enough -- depends on what we mean by "general wear & tear".  For example:  I've had stained carpets that needed to be replaced -- apparently, the tenants had pets that were expressly forbidden on the lease.  I've also had to "super-clean" drapes that stank of tobacco smoke in a non-smoking unit.  I've had to replace blinds that were crumpled & abused.  Are these "general wear & tear"?  Are these the landlord's fault or the tenants'?

Unruly landlord...what's the best option?

joe pesci

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Fair enough -- depends on what we mean by "general wear & tear".  For example:  I've had stained carpets that needed to be replaced -- apparently, the tenants had pets that were expressly forbidden on the lease.  I've also had to "super-clean" drapes that stank of tobacco smoke in a non-smoking unit.  I've had to replace blinds that were crumpled & abused.  Are these "general wear & tear"?  Are these the landlord's fault or the tenants'?

why'd you supply drapes in the first place.  only need to supply curtain rods

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I just want to remind everyone that we've heard only one side of the story.

La Lana  wrote:
Okay...and...

I don't get why you keep coming back in the thread.

Because I am trying to provide the assistance you requested, but you are not hearing what I am saying.  You are frustrated.  I am frustrated.  My message is not being heard.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Stop it.  Just stop it.  I am trying to help.

Having pictures is terrific.  My point is...
...  How do you expect the judge to reconcile the situation when you have photos
     and your landlord has different photos?
...  Do you have pictures of the unit's state when you moved in?  I bet your landlord
     does.

"Most of them are redone" ...  so what?  Was the landlord obligated to redo all the units?

Yes, taking false evidence could be a crime, but you are talking about a civil suit, and it is highly unlikely that criminal charges will arise from deliberations from a civil suit.  But "false evidence" is not so black in white.  "Before" and "After" pictures are not "false evidence", are they?  How do you intend to prove that your landlord's evidence is "false"?

Look -- enjoy your day in court.  Let us know if it comes out like you expect it to.  My guess -- if both parties are equally prepared, the judge will cut the baby in half.  However, if you make accusations that you can't prove (e.g. that the landlord discriminated against you based on your familial status), you might convince the judge to distrust you.

Perhaps.  But like I said, we are only hearing one side of the story.  For all we know...
...  The landlord has given the tenant all appropriate notices of inspection;
...  The landlord is only visiting once a quarter, not once a month;
...  The tenant might be on probation from previous infractions;
...  Who knows?

The point is not what happened but what can be proved.  If you present a "he said; she said" situation to a judge, he is likely to do nothing for either party.  We've heard some of what the OP claims to have happened; we really don't know what she can prove, nor do we know what the landlord will be able to prove in response to the OP's claims.

I carefully selected my property manager, and if they are visiting one of my properties, I have high confidence that they have documented that they gave the appropriate notices. 

Look -- if you are a landlord, you are restrained by many laws & regulations, all of which tend to favor the tenant.  My property managers are constantly amassing documentation, including photographs, invoices, e-mails, letters, etc.  Most tenants I've met are not nearly as organized.

The OP asked for help, and I am providing it.  She doesn't like it, but I'm providing it nonetheless.  If she was my tenant, her apartment would never be entered without the appropriate notice, as required by law.  Each inspection comes with photographs & a form filled out (similar to the inspection forms one gets when one buys a house).  We have maintenance done by reputable handymen & contractors, any of whom can be an expert witness. 

Are there bad or "unruly" landlords?  Heck, yeah.
Are there terrible tenants?  Heck, yeah.
Do court cases go the way the tenant thinks they'll go.  NEVER.


P.S.  I tend to have my properties inspected once a year and before a move-in.  I don't think there is any regulation that says an inspector (who has properly notified the tenant) cannot open a refrigerator.  Indeed, I kinda want the older refrigerators to be inspected, to ensure that they are still performing properly.

I don't see what the point is in us responding to each other.

You stated that if I try and speak how I feel in court with no proof I will lose the judges trust.

If she brings in false evidence this will be all handy dandy and okay.  You haven't been helpful in the least bit.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Not always true. You have to keep in mind who you're dealing with, and never assume anything. Example and proof in the pudding. Tenant here a few years ago, accidentally let out the land lord's cat outside of her gate twice. Yes twice, but it was an accident. She lost her mind and went off on him. He'd approached me about the incident. I had no comment for a couple of reasons. One was, he got comfortable with her. I didn't because I'd already peeped her out. And two, I'd sensed that he was a flunky for her, having him probe me. Back on topic, after she went off on him, he'd snapped on her and with good reason.

Instead of acknowledging that she was in the wrong, guess what happened? She tried to vacate him from the apartment, messed up his mail, where he told me that he'd lost a lot of it due to both theft, telling the post man that he no longer lives there and several other silly things. During their tenant/land lord battle, she pulled her lawyer into the equation. I was getting all types of calls from him, trying to get me to co-sign for her. "Fuck that." was what I'd said to myself and I was getting letters from them both, under my door. Long story short, when it was time to go to court, he had no one to support him, so he didn't show up. She had both her lawyer and neighbors there. People that had no fucking clue what was really going on. They just heard him going off with no understanding why. People are easily deceived like that.

The thing about it when it comes to a lawyer...

Right now it stands at just the $500 dollar deposit...if they wanted a lawyer to come to court and what not (which never seen one in small claims) it could likely cost them thousands of dollars.

Now if it comes down to a harassment suit...that may be different.  I emailed an attorney again..hopefully it won't be an arm and leg to get an email back...

hassanchop wrote:
I have never had a landlord come into the premises that I was renting unless it was for repairs.

I do believe that landlords can enter their property provided that have given the appropriate notice as defined by their local laws and the lease.  That includes coming in for inspections or repairs or for other legitimate purposes (for example, I recently had carbon monoxide detectors installed).  What happens if a landlord and/or his agent comes in to install those detectors & finds a problem?

For example:  One of my properties is a townhouse, in three levels.  The front door is the middle level, accessed by porch steps -- the bottom level is the garage & a bonus room (with a powder room).  Carbon monoxide detectors have to be installed on each level, but when the handyman entered the property (with appropriate notice), he found the interior steps down to the lower level blocked.  As it turned out, the tenant had sublet the lower level to a family -- I had lots of problems with this:
   ...  There was a no subletting clause in the lease,
   ...  We weren't informed,
   ...  The lower level didn't have a kitchen or a shower/bathtub,
   ...  Let's just say that the family's cooking was a major fire hazard,
   ...  The lower level was a huge mess,
   ...  The family wouldn't pass the typical background check,
   ...  The interior steps were a fire exit for the legal tenant,
among other things.  That crap happens. 

I had another tenant that liked to work on his motorcycle on the living room carpet.  I'll resist other monster tenant stories, but I've had my share.

A landlord, if he is any good, needs to inspect his property at least once a year.

hassanchop wrote:
I have successfully sued a landlord and I have had landlords tried to keep my deposit - -the last one that did I had a little conversation with and they decided it was in their best interest to return my deposit.

Yeah, like I said in my first post -- an experienced landlord might find it cheaper / faster / easier to give in rather than to go to court.

hassanchop wrote:
There are a lot of slummy landlords out there. Personally I would rather deal with a good property management company.

Yeah, I've a fan of good property managers.  They know the laws, they have contacts all over the industry, they can do thorough background checks on prospective tenants, and they can keep a good business perspective.

hassanchop wrote:
And I know that there a bad tenants too. No way would I put up with that kind of BS from any landlord. Unless you have good reason you are not coming the place I am paying to rent.

Again, I believe that landlords can & should inspect their properties.  The property belongs to the landlord & not the tenant, but the tenant can (and sometimes has) severely impacted the property value.  The law provides that the landlord can inspect the property given appropriate notice -- the landlord doesn't have to justify his desire to inspect his property. 

What do you mean "no way would I put up with that kind of BS"?  What would you do?

hassanchop wrote:
And you want to open my fridge we have a problem -- what's next -- a peek into my panty drawer?

I don't think so.

Well, if I can't check to see if my fridge is working properly, I guess we do have a problem.  Whatcha going to do?  Sue me for opening the fridge door?

La Las Nudes  wrote:
If she brings in false evidence this will be all handy dandy and okay.  You haven't been helpful in the least bit.

Please show me where I ever said it was okay for anyone to bring false evidence into court!!!

All Yours Photography wrote:

Check your state laws to see if you live in a "one party state".  If so, start recording conversations with the landlord as well.

If you live in a "one party state", conversations, including phone calls, can be recorded as long as at least one party involved in the conversation permits it.  Other parties do not have to be informed.  It varies state to state.

It is...a one party state

La Las Nudes  wrote:

The thing about it when it comes to a lawyer...

Right now it stands at just the $500 dollar deposit...if they wanted a lawyer to come to court and what not (which never seen one in small claims) it could likely cost them thousands of dollars.

Now if it comes down to a harassment suit...that may be different.  I emailed an attorney again..hopefully it won't be an arm and leg to get an email back...

Like I'd said, never assume anything. The land lord here wanted the tenant out. He was able to pay his rent. To her, loosing the case or not, money wasn't an issue. In the end, she ended up spending more money on her lawyer than what he'd pay a month. See my point? Some people's ego and pride are that big where they have to be right and win because in their eyes, you're in the wrong. Not everyone thinks rationally. ESPECIALLY when you have the type of land lord that you have. Her inspections are extreme. Now picture that mentality when she's in court.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Please show me where I ever said it was okay for anyone to bring false evidence into court!!!

You said that if we had two different evidence the judge is just going to split it down the middle...you said because it's just a civil case no charges would be brought.

I am pretty sure a judge would frown more upon someone bringing false evidence into a court room then he would someone expressing how they feel without evidence.

La Lana  wrote:

You said that if we had two different evidence the judge is just going to split it down the middle...you said because it's just a civil case no charges would be brought.

I am pretty sure a judge would frown more upon someone bringing false evidence into a court room then he would someone expressing how they feel without evidence.

Chuckles. You haven't ever been to small claims court have you?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Please show me where I ever said it was okay for anyone to bring false evidence into court!!!

La Lana  wrote:
You said that if we had two different evidence the judge is just going to split it down the middle...you said because it's just a civil case no charges would be brought.

I am pretty sure a judge would frown more upon someone bringing false evidence into a court room then he would someone expressing how they feel without evidence.

And I've said that just because people bring conflicting evidence into a courtroom, that doesn't mean that one evidence is "false".  I gave examples.  In general, I can bring in a photo taken on Tuesday and you can bring in a photo taken on Thursday -- neither one of them needs to be "false".

I do believe that unless there is some reason for the judge to believe one side over another, the judge is likely to do nothing or to find a middle ground that is not satisfying to either party.  That's my experience.

Finally, if someone lies under oath in a civil suit (which happened in my experience, with the judge calling that particular witness "among the least credible witnesses he has ever seen"), I think it is unlikely that the judge will file criminal charges.  Of course, the lying witness might open himself up for further civil disputes, but a criminal charge -- that's not my experience.

But bottom line:  it is you and only you that clings to the idea that your landlord will falsify evidence in court.  Disagreeing with you does not necessarily mean the other party is lying.  All I'm saying is that the landlord will have her side of the story to tell, and if you can't dispute what she says, the judge may not necessarily agree with you.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Please show me where I ever said it was okay for anyone to bring false evidence into court!!!

And I've said that just because people bring conflicting evidence into a courtroom, that doesn't mean that one evidence is "false".  I gave examples.  In general, I can bring in a photo taken on Tuesday and you can bring in a photo taken on Thursday -- neither one of them needs to be "false".

I do believe that unless there is some reason for the judge to believe one side over another, the judge is likely to do nothing or to find a middle ground that is not satisfying to either party.  That's my experience.

Finally, if someone lies under oath in a civil suit (which happened in my experience, with the judge calling that particular witness "among the least credible witnesses he has ever seen"), I think it is unlikely that the judge will file criminal charges.  Of course, the lying witness might open himself up for further civil disputes, but a criminal charge -- that's not my experience.

But bottom line:  it is you and only you that clings to the idea that your landlord will falsify evidence in court.  Disagreeing with you does not necessarily mean the other party is lying.  All I'm saying is that the landlord will have her side of the story to tell, and if you can't dispute what she says, the judge may not necessarily agree with you.

Spot on!

La Lana  wrote:
I just feel confused on what she can hold it for.  She said she'd charge me if I left tacs in the wall, but I thought that was regular wear and tear, and what does it cost for someone to take a tac out of a wall.

You really think that punching holes in a wall is normal wear and tear? Really?

Also, it's not just a matter of pulling tacks, nails, etc out of the wall. You then have to fill in the hole. Depending on the color of the walls, all of them little dots of white Spackle might force a repaint that otherwise would not have had to be done. My lease prohibits putting holes in the walls. Period.

Two Pears Studio wrote:
The burden of proof is on them. Take photos after every inspection and document.  Then sue

No. It is not. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the OP).

The OP should get an itemized statement showing any deductions to her deposit. Claiming that the landlord made deductions for work that was never done? Talk about very thin ice. How would the OP even know this given that she will have not had access to the unit after it was vacated? How will she prove this? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Keep in mind the OP is accusing the landlord of things that have not even happen yet?

Lohkee wrote:

You really think that punching holes in a wall is normal wear and tear? Really?

Also, it's not just a matter of pulling tacks, nails, etc out of the wall. You then have to fill in the hole. Depending on the color of the walls, all of them little dots of white Spackle might force a repaint that otherwise would not have had to be done. My lease prohibits putting holes in the walls. Period.

If they can be painted over...yes...and she told me from the get go...if I use them...then just use smaller ones (which I did).  And I made a point to show them to her husband before I used them...there were 5 throughout the entire apartment.  Her issue was me leaving them in the walls. YOUR lease may say you can't put tacs in the walls...mine doesn't.

A few small nail holes is wear and tear; large holes in the walls constitute damages.
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/normal-wea … -1914.html

Lohkee wrote:
No. It is not. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the OP).

The OP should get an itemized statement showing any deductions to her deposit. Claiming that the landlord made deductions for work that was never done? Talk about very thin ice. How would the OP even know this given that she will have not had access to the unit after it was vacated? How will she prove this? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Keep in mind the OP is accusing the landlord of things that have not even happen yet?

In MO they have 30 days to give an itemized list of anything they withheld (which they didn't). 

READ WHAT I ACTUALLY PUT.  I moved out of my old unit into another one last May...I knew who lived in the unit I currently live in.  One day she stopped by and noticed the things that they withheld her deposit for were not fixed.  This concerns me as I wouldn't want this to happen to me....also it's theft...there could be thousands of dollars illegally.  I came here to ask if anyone knows where I could possibly report it.

I will also point out that I know who moved into my old unit, and I have been in there since.  I talk to A LOT of my neighbors around here.

La Lana  wrote:
I came here to ask if anyone knows where I could possibly report it.

Have you tried these folks?

http://www.jchamo.org/

La Lana  wrote:
Normal wear and tear. Even the most conscientious tenant will cause minor damage over the course of a rental agreement. This is typically referred to as "normal wear and tear." It might include small scratches on the walls or paint, worn or slightly stained carpeting, broken hinges, or other insignificant damage. Having to repaint the property, clean the carpet and repair a few scuffs or nail holes on the walls after each tenant moves out are to be expected due to normal wear and tear, and not something a landlord can charge tenants for.

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contra … z2JgzvnCI9

Check to see if there are any public records on the land lord's relationship history with tenants where she had to go to court. The key and goal here is to see if those issues are consistent with your issues. What this will do is possibly arouse the judge's curiosity where she's seeing a pattern of ripping off the tenants. Land lords (not in general) will nickle and dime their tenants if the opportunity is there.

Lohkee wrote:
Well, all I'm going to say is good luck to you

(and yes, I am a landlord).

I am sure your opinion will trump my state law...

Orca Bay Images wrote:

Have you tried these folks?

http://www.jchamo.org/

No...I thought they only provided people with housing...

Looknsee Photography wrote:

hassanchop wrote:
I have never had a landlord come into the premises that I was renting unless it was for repairs.

I do believe that landlords can enter their property provided that have given the appropriate notice as defined by their local laws and the lease.  That includes coming in for inspections or repairs or for other legitimate purposes (for example, I recently had carbon monoxide detectors installed).  What happens if a landlord and/or his agent comes in to install those detectors & finds a problem?

For example:  One of my properties is a townhouse, in three levels.  The front door is the middle level, accessed by porch steps -- the bottom level is the garage & a bonus room (with a powder room).  Carbon monoxide detectors have to be installed on each level, but when the handyman entered the property (with appropriate notice), he found the interior steps down to the lower level blocked.  As it turned out, the tenant had sublet the lower level to a family -- I had lots of problems with this:
   ...  There was a no subletting clause in the lease,
   ...  We weren't informed,
   ...  The lower level didn't have a kitchen or a shower/bathtub,
   ...  Let's just say that the family's cooking was a major fire hazard,
   ...  The lower level was a huge mess,
   ...  The family wouldn't pass the typical background check,
   ...  The interior steps were a fire exit for the legal tenant,
among other things.  That crap happens. 

I had another tenant that liked to work on his motorcycle on the living room carpet.  I'll resist other monster tenant stories, but I've had my share.

A landlord, if he is any good, needs to inspect his property at least once a year.

hassanchop wrote:
I have successfully sued a landlord and I have had landlords tried to keep my deposit - -the last one that did I had a little conversation with and they decided it was in their best interest to return my deposit.

Yeah, like I said in my first post -- an experienced landlord might find it cheaper / faster / easier to give in rather than to go to court.

hassanchop wrote:
There are a lot of slummy landlords out there. Personally I would rather deal with a good property management company.

Yeah, I've a fan of good property managers.  They know the laws, they have contacts all over the industry, they can do thorough background checks on prospective tenants, and they can keep a good business perspective.

hassanchop wrote:
And I know that there a bad tenants too. No way would I put up with that kind of BS from any landlord. Unless you have good reason you are not coming the place I am paying to rent.

Again, I believe that landlords can & should inspect their properties.  The property belongs to the landlord & not the tenant, but the tenant can (and sometimes has) severely impacted the property value.  The law provides that the landlord can inspect the property given appropriate notice -- the landlord doesn't have to justify his desire to inspect his property. 

What do you mean "no way would I put up with that kind of BS"?  What would you do?


Well, if I can't check to see if my fridge is working properly, I guess we do have a problem.  Whatcha going to do?  Sue me for opening the fridge door?

I have always left my properties in the same better shape than when I rented them.

The landlord that tried to screw me out of my deposit -- I enlightened him on some laws. He saw things my way. Another landlord didn't think it was his job to figure out where a nasty smell was coming from. Too bad for him that I called someone to inspect ( which I told him I would) and they found a bunch of code violations. Lucky for him I didn't report him for taking an illegal homeowner's exemption. Also too bad he didn't listen to me -- the smell was the wood rotting in the walls in the kitchen because the roof was leaking. That was an expensive repair.

And all of the leases I have ever signed had a clause that they had to give 24 hour notice before entering and they only entered if repairs were necessary.

Obviously I would know if the refrigerator wasn't working but other than that you have no reason to go through the fridge.

I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We would be in court if you tried to enter the premises without proper notice or if you went through my stuff. I'd take my chances calling the cops and then it would be a civil matter.

Down here if the landlord violates the lease the tenants can withhold rent. And evicting tenants is not very much fun.

The law is pretty clear in most states about why and when a landlord can enter the property -- and there are penalties for non-compliance.

La Lana  wrote:

I am sure your opinion will trump my state law...

Not at all. I don't think you **understand** your state law, not to mention the fact that you are freaking out over something that has not even happened yet

Drama much?

La Lana  wrote:

No...I thought they only provided people with housing...

Every housing authority in every area I've lived in has provided mediation on housing disputes. In these belt-tightening times, yours might not. But it doesn't hurt to ask.

La Lana  wrote:
Normal wear and tear. Even the most conscientious tenant will cause minor damage over the course of a rental agreement. This is typically referred to as "normal wear and tear." It might include small scratches on the walls or paint, worn or slightly stained carpeting, broken hinges, or other insignificant damage. Having to repaint the property, clean the carpet and repair a few scuffs or nail holes on the walls after each tenant moves out are to be expected due to normal wear and tear, and not something a landlord can charge tenants for.

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contra … z2JgzvnCI9

Repainting is considered normal. All of my leases specified that any holes in the wall had to be spackled.Normal wear and tear can be kind of ambiguous.

I always made sure that anywhere I rented was in as good and usually better than the condition upon move in. I am a fair person -- but if someone tries to get over I will use any and all legal means necessary. 

I hope you took photographs when you moved in and take pictures when you move out.

The only thing that matters is if you leave the property in equal or better condition than when you moved in. Normally you take pictures and do a walk-through and mark everything off that is wrong and the landlord or inspector signs off on it.

Lohkee wrote:

Not at all. I don't think you **understand** your state law, not to mention the fact that you are freaking out over something that has not even happened yet

Drama much?

These are some things I discussed with a lawyer...small holes in a wall that can be painted over=normal wear and tear.  Since you are smart...enlighten me?

If you actually read what I wrote...some and really a lot of it has happened...and it's better for me to prepare for it before it happens because there won't be an after.  That's why I have pictures and stuff of the other unit.

She has threatened me numerous times...so I started protecting myself.  That's not drama...that's protecting my rights.

La Lana  wrote:

These are some things I discussed with a lawyer...small holes in a wall that can be painted over=normal wear and tear.  Since you are smart...enlighten me?

If you actually read what I wrote...some and really a lot of it has happened...and it's better for me to prepare for it before it happens because there won't be an after.  That's why I have pictures and stuff of the other unit.

She has threatened me numerous times...so I started protecting myself.  That's not drama...that's protecting my rights.

Move out as soon as possible. Have the landlord do a walk through with you and they must give you an itemized list of everything that needs to be addressed.

There are civil penalties in most states if a landlord illegally withholds a deposit

hassanchop wrote:
I have always left my properties in the same better shape than when I rented them.

And we **love** renters like you! I have always been blessed with great renters and in 30 years have never had to withhold any part of a deposit (touch wood).

I think the relationship is what people make it.

I don't bother with inspections (neighbors will let me know if crazy shit is going on). You can live like a pig for all I care **as long as you return the unit to me in the same condition I rented to you in** as it's really none of my business. 

I also ask my tenants to not attempt repairs themselves and to call me immediately if there is a problem. The main reason for this is that I want the job done right, and a lot of young people are well, kind of lacking in this department.

A relationship can be win/win or loose/loose. It's all what you make it. As a landlord, I prefer the win/win as the alternative is a big waste of time (and can be expensive).

La Lana  wrote:

These are some things I discussed with a lawyer...small holes in a wall that can be painted over=normal wear and tear.  Since you are smart...enlighten me?

If you actually read what I wrote...some and really a lot of it has happened...and it's better for me to prepare for it before it happens because there won't be an after.  That's why I have pictures and stuff of the other unit.

She has threatened me numerous times...so I started protecting myself.  That's not drama...that's protecting my rights.

Have **you** moved out yet? Have they withheld any part of **your** deposit as of this date?