Deposits and decreased value
August 24, 2011 1:26 PM   Subscribe

TX landlord filter. Can I charge against a deposit for decreased lifespan of carpet when I'm not actually replacing the carpet yet?

I know that it's common to charge a prorated replacement amount for stuff that was rendered useless before its time. Say, 10-year carpet that's 5 years old gets ruined by tenants, so I'd replace the carpet, but charge them half of the cost.

I have former tenants who sliced up brand new carpet in a room entrance to run wire underneath it (wtf). It's been repaired with carpet seam tape, but it's an unavoidable traffic area, and the carpet will surely have to be replaced earlier than it would have otherwise. Can I take, say, %20 of the value of the carpet out of their deposit?

I haven't seen that either of these cases are addressed specifically in law, but the first is sort of an accepted convention, as any deposit guidelines outside of normal wear and tear seem to be. You're not a lawyer, or if you are you're not mine.
posted by cmoj to Law & Government (3 answers total)
 
Best answer: Former Landlord, not a lawyer. Yes, I would charge for the damage. I think the key is to make the charge reasonable, and 20% sounds pretty reasonable to me.
posted by theora55 at 2:13 PM on August 24, 2011


Best answer: Check this out if you haven't already (that whole chapter, Ch. 92, applies to you, btw).

You have the burden of proving reasonableness if they decide to fight you on it in court. Reasonableness basically means what a reasonable person would do--everyone knows you can't just chop up carpet and expect it to last as long. You should be good there. But the percentage you deduct shouldn't be arbitrary. How much will it cost to replace the carpet in that house (because a bid just to do that room isn't economical in that the carpet guy will charge you more for a small job, right?) in a couple of years? How much is 20% of their deposit? If those numbers make sense in your context, it's probably reasonable. It might be higher or lower. But if you tell the judge you just made it up because it was a nice, round number, you might get knocked down on it. (And the penalties under the subchapter above aren't pretty.)

You will probably want to itemize the deductions you make, too. It's generally required by statute and I bet the lease requires it too.

Further, I don't see a requirement in the Property Code that you have to spend the money you docked them right away on replacing whatever you've charged them for. You're charging them for the decrease in the property's value beyond normal wear and tear.

There might be a case out there that interprets Chap. 92 differently and says a 20% deduction is unreasonable as a matter of law when you aren't replacing the damaged thing right away, but since I'm not your lawyer, I'm not hunting for it.

Also, read the lease and make sure you can do what you want to do. It operates in conjunction with Chap. 92 (there's probably a lease provision to this effect).
posted by resurrexit at 2:19 PM on August 24, 2011


Response by poster: Question answered. A the lease says explicitly that the deposit is for damages, not replacement or maintenance performed or something.
posted by cmoj at 4:25 PM on August 24, 2011


« Older EH ?   |   sseeking help Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.