A Tenant Left The Place a Mess.
Question
A tenant in one of my 4-plex units left the place a mess. In addition to not even attempting to do any cleaning, he seriously stained the carpet during his stay and otherwise damaged it in several spots. Also, certain walls and many of the window blinds were damaged. I have a non-refundable cleaning deposit in addition to a security deposit. What can I charge the ex-tenant against his deposits?
Answer
First, be aware that any “deposit” is by definition potentially fully refundable if the tenant meets the terms of the lease agreement. Some states do not allow a separate cleaning amount whether called a “deposit” or a “fee” and some states prohibit making it non-refundable. In states where a non-refundable amount is allowed related to cleaning, the lease agreement should call it a “cleaning fee” rather than a “cleaning deposit.”
Finally, some states that allow deposit or fees other than a “security deposit” still limit the maximum total of all amounts collected to be the maximum amount stated for the maximum security deposit in the state’s statutes. For example, in some states a “cleaning fee” of $200 plus a “security deposit” equal to a month’s rent would exceed the legal limit if state law limits a security deposit to one month’s rent. I mention these potential issues because a knowledgeable tenant could use collection of excess deposits against the landlord when disputing the deductions taken from his deposits and the financial penalty for security deposit violations by a landlord can be significant.
I will assume that a cleaning deposit/fee is allowed in your state and that it can be non-refundable. I will also assume that his rent was paid to the date of vacating, as you made no mention of rent being owed. If both rent and damages are owed it can sometimes be important regarding the order in which deductions are taken from amounts held by the landlord.
In your case and under my assumptions you should apply all cleaning costs against the cleaning deposit/fee amount. In some states, if the amount of the cleaning “deposit” exceeds the cost of cleaning (as the term is generally understood) the excess cannot necessarily be applied against damages that are not considered cleaning and the excess of the “deposit” must be refunded to the tenant. This fact is another reason to call the amount collected for cleaning, a cleaning “fee” rather than a cleaning “deposit” when such a fee is allowed by the particular state.
If the entire cleaning amount collected is not enough to cover all cleaning costs, the excess cost would next be applied against the security deposit.
Actual damages, including carpet and blinds, but not including “normal wear & tear,” would then be charged against the remainder of the security deposit. Damages in excess of the remaining deposit amount may be recoverable via a lawsuit. The reason for ending up with damages potentially exceeding the remaining amount held rather than cleaning is that a judge is more likely to award a judgment for physical damages (e.g., a broken window) that are easily documented via photos, assuming your move-in checklist signed by the tenant shows all windows were in good condition, rather than for a claim that something wasn’t cleaned adequately (e.g., some missed grease in an oven) that can be somewhat subjective and the tenant may be able to convince the judge that the oven was just as dirty when he moved in.
It is important to understand that, technically, you cannot charge the tenant for the total cost of replacing the entire carpet in the unit unless it was brand new when he moved in and there is irreparable damage in every room that is beyond normal wear & tear. There are two different issues regarding this issue. First, depending on the floor plan and the location of carpeting, it may be acceptable to replace carpeting in only certain rooms. Second, wherever carpeting is replaced you cannot charge for the full cost of carpeting, but must allow for depreciation.
The percentage of cost of replacing damaged carpet that may be charged against the tenant is determined by dividing the number of years the carpet has been in service (including the period the unit was occupied by the tenant who damaged the carpet) by the “useful life” of the carpet. There is more than one number that might be justifiable for useful life, but it is usually least arguable to use the number of years warranted by the manufacturer.
As examples, assume a carpet that the manufacturer had warranted for 15 years. If the carpet was 10 years old when the tenant vacated the unit and it can be proven that the damage did not exist at time of move-in, the tenant can be charged 5/15 = 33.3% of the replacement cost, with the cost perhaps being only for the room in which the carpet is damaged if appropriate. If the carpet had been new when the tenant moved in a year earlier, the tenant can be charged 14/15 = 93.3% of replacement cost for damaged areas, again depending upon floor plan. If the carpet was 14 years old when the tenant moved into the unit and the tenant remained for one year or more, the tenant cannot be charged any part of the cost of replacement because the carpet had no remaining “useful life.”
Similar considerations must be given to window coverings, appliances, and other components of a rental that would be considered capital items (have a typical useful life of longer than a year) when they require replacement rather than repair.
Charges for damages to painted surfaces can depend on a number of factors, including specific terms of the lease agreement and that the “damages” are actually “normal wear & tear.”
Landlords should not try to charge a tenant for replacement when a repair can fix the problem. When charges for damages end up in court the judge is usually concerned that the landlord was fair and reasonable.
Finally, to avoid penalties that are potentially significant in some states, landlords should always provide detailed accounting (including documentation) of charges against deposits and do so within the period allowed by state law for return of deposits and/or an accounting of amounts not returned.