Wait why wouldn’t they? People piss and shit and if you damage a rental with it, you’re billed for it. I feel like you’re very angry about a problem you made up.
Landlords, of course, can sue for damages, but it’s almost always in small claims court, and the former tenant is almost always “judgement proof” – no real assets and no real wages to garnish. These same individuals are often the sort of tenant who allows their pets to destroy a home, let cat urine soak into the floor boards, and so on.
Not everyone, of course. and in fact, probably a very small minority of tenants, but it only takes one terrible tenant to utterly destroy a home.
I think they are referring to the times when the cost of damages (think a pet hoarder) outweigh what the deposit would normally cover. Rather than taking the previous tenant to court (if even possible) to pay for the excess, some landlords will just slap on fresh coat of paint to appeal to the eyes and ignore everything else that need to be done.
With cat urine for instance, you may be able to hide the smell temporarily, but unless you replace the carpet/flooring, add an odor blocking primer to other stained permanent surfaces, replace odor-impregnated things like cabinetry or sheet rock, the smell will just keep coming back. It can sometimes be about as bad, cost-wise, as flood/mold remediation.
My friends’ mother had several cats and she did not take care of any place she lived in. When visiting her there was a separation of the outside air and inside air which was more “dense”, and had a smell which took a few minutes to adjust to. Her rent did not cover the damages she caused; mold, stains, rot if she lived there long enough.
Have you ever known anyone who tried to rent out their place? My understanding is that it’s near impossible to keep someone’s security deposit when they damage your place, if they choose to fight you on it. I very much doubt that non-corporate landlords would be able to successfully collect damages from a renter with pets who trashed the place. This move will absolutely hurt individual landlords in favor of the corporate landlords that can afford lawyers.
It’s actually a bit risky to keep a deposit. If the tenant says you’ve done so unjustly, and a court agrees, the LL can be sued for triple what they kept. I have an owner occupied two unit and it would really need to be a lot of damage with evidence of intent or negligence. Why risk keeping a deposit and then being sued for triple while still having to carry out repairs caused by a careless tenant or their animal.
My place doesn’t make me any money, it’s a loss every year, but at least I’m building equity right?
Wait why wouldn’t they? People piss and shit and if you damage a rental with it, you’re billed for it. I feel like you’re very angry about a problem you made up.
Landlords, of course, can sue for damages, but it’s almost always in small claims court, and the former tenant is almost always “judgement proof” – no real assets and no real wages to garnish. These same individuals are often the sort of tenant who allows their pets to destroy a home, let cat urine soak into the floor boards, and so on.
Not everyone, of course. and in fact, probably a very small minority of tenants, but it only takes one terrible tenant to utterly destroy a home.
I wouldn’t say made up.
I think they are referring to the times when the cost of damages (think a pet hoarder) outweigh what the deposit would normally cover. Rather than taking the previous tenant to court (if even possible) to pay for the excess, some landlords will just slap on fresh coat of paint to appeal to the eyes and ignore everything else that need to be done.
With cat urine for instance, you may be able to hide the smell temporarily, but unless you replace the carpet/flooring, add an odor blocking primer to other stained permanent surfaces, replace odor-impregnated things like cabinetry or sheet rock, the smell will just keep coming back. It can sometimes be about as bad, cost-wise, as flood/mold remediation.
My friends’ mother had several cats and she did not take care of any place she lived in. When visiting her there was a separation of the outside air and inside air which was more “dense”, and had a smell which took a few minutes to adjust to. Her rent did not cover the damages she caused; mold, stains, rot if she lived there long enough.
Have you ever known anyone who tried to rent out their place? My understanding is that it’s near impossible to keep someone’s security deposit when they damage your place, if they choose to fight you on it. I very much doubt that non-corporate landlords would be able to successfully collect damages from a renter with pets who trashed the place. This move will absolutely hurt individual landlords in favor of the corporate landlords that can afford lawyers.
Boo hoo. I’ll definitely cry for the land leeches. Maybe they can get a job.
Sounds like you’re simping for corporate landlords.
Nope. All land leeches are leeches. To quote Adam “The Father of Capitalism” Smith:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
It’s actually a bit risky to keep a deposit. If the tenant says you’ve done so unjustly, and a court agrees, the LL can be sued for triple what they kept. I have an owner occupied two unit and it would really need to be a lot of damage with evidence of intent or negligence. Why risk keeping a deposit and then being sued for triple while still having to carry out repairs caused by a careless tenant or their animal.
My place doesn’t make me any money, it’s a loss every year, but at least I’m building equity right?
If you’re building equity, it’s not a loss every year.