We lived in my last house for about 5 years. Our former

Hello,

It sounds much higher than what it likely should be. Upon moving out, a landlord can only charge you for damages above normal wear and tear (damages out of the ordinary). Now, there is no legal definition of what "normal wear and tear" is, but as a general rule, carpeting has a limited lifespan (especially light carpeting). So, things like shoe markings and some fading would be normal. The same would be true of light stains after 5 years. But heavily stained carpet, carpets with pet or human urine stains, cigarette burns, etc. would be beyond normal wear and tear. Similarly, the wall that was drawn on would have to be repainted and the other wall patched and likely repainted so it matches, but you wouldn't be responsible for repainting of the entire house, for example. Some fading of the paint is typical.

You shouldn't have to pay for a new garage door opener or new blinds unless you did something to the old ones (e.g., I had a dog that chewed up blinds in an apartment I rented, it cost me $500 to replace all of them!). He cannot charge you, however, just because the blinds are old and he wants new ones. That's not your fault, and replacement costs are just part of doing business as a landlord.

That's absolutely correct, yes.

Well then, he can't really charge you for that. It was malfunctioning to begin with. It's not as if you broke it. Did you make the landlord aware of the problems with it?

Absolutely not. Carpet has limited life and again, the fact that it was older must be taken into account. Only damage beyond normal wear and tear would have to be replaced. So, if your dog or cat chewed up an area of the carpet, you might have to pay for that section, even a room (since it's hard to replace just a section sometimes). But you wouldn't have to carpet the whole house. Seems like this landlord is trying to take advantage. Did he provide receipts of work done on the house?

Did you dispute the taking of your entire security deposit?

That's okay! The notice should have been sent to your last known address within 30 days of you moving out, per Utah statute.

57-17-3. Deductions from deposit -- Written itemization -- Time for return.

(1)Upon termination of a tenancy, the owner or the owner's agent may apply property or money held as a deposit toward the payment of rent, damages to the premises beyond reasonable wear and tear, other costs and fees provided for in the contract, or cleaning of the unit.

(2)No later than 30 days after the day on which a renter vacates and returns possession of a rental property to the owner or the owner's agent, the owner or the owner's agent shall deliver to the renter at the renter's last known address:

(a)the balance of any deposit;

(b)the balance of any prepaid rent; and

(c)if the owner or the owner's agent made any deductions from the deposit or prepaid rent, a written notice that itemizes and explains the reason for each deduction.

Regardless, I would definitely not agree to their terms. He could sue you in small claims for up to $10,000, but the fact is that based on what you're telling me, they should not be successful. The damage to the walls and such should have been covered, I imagine by the large security deposit. But you're not responsible for making a brand new house for the next tenant. You don't have to pay to re-carpet the entire home or pay for all new blinds throughout the house, or new garage door openers, etc.

Yes, rent can be taken from the security deposit.

Per Utah law, if the landlord does not return the tenant's deposit within 30 days, or if the landlord does not provide an itemized list of deductions, the tenant may give the landlord (or their agent) a Tenant's Notice to Provide Deposit Disposition. The Notice is provided in the Forms section.

So then you would be a month to month tenant, and should have given 30 days notice. But, you had an agreement that said otherwise. The only trouble there is that it's verbal, so it's your word versus his.

That's very true. He knew you were moving. Honestly, what his biggest issue seems to be is he knows he cant re-rent the home with old carpets, dirty walls, etc. and thinks he can make you pay it.

Yes, he can still file suit, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on beyond the damages you told me about like the couple of blinds and the wall.

Send the landlord this notice demanding the breakdown of the security deposit within 5 days, and if they do not, then by law, they would be required to refund the entire security deposit.

You can say exactly what you said here: That you agree with the cost for repairs in the hole in walls, the sets of blinds and the remainder of the pro-rated rent for the 15 days.

You're so very welcome. Grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Do you have pictures of the home after it was cleaned? I mean some of these damages seem excessive -$3,800 for the walls? I can understand some needing to be repainted and patched, but are they charging for all of them?

I believe you had mentioned the carpet being very old. Thus, it's not fair to charge you for the replacement for normal wear and tear.

If keys were not left behind, I could understand charges for replacement of the keys.

The fact that he's willing to settle for about half suggests to me that he knows his claim is weak, otherwise he'd have no problem just filing suit. I think though at this point, as a lawyer is involved, it's worth consulting with a lawyer to discuss options.

You'd want a landlord-tenant attorney. What you'll want to discuss with them is what options or approach you should take and given what an attorney could cost, how far you want to take it.

I definitely think a letter disputing things needs to be sent. And he clearly knew you were moving out and didn't have a problem with it because he took pictures of the home while you were cleaning.

I agree, and don't think a judge would find it ridiculous as well!

I think you meant to reply here and replied in the other question.

A landlord can always charge for damages beyond normal wear and tear -the fact you weren't given a copy of the lease they signed doesn't change that.

Now, if within the 30 days they didn't return the security deposit or a breakdown of what the deposit was used for, Utah law allows you to send a "Notice of Deposit Disposition" to the landlord demanding to know what the deposit was used for or a return of the security deposit (or any unused portion) within 5 days of receipt of the notice. Then, if they do not comply with that, Utah law says you'd be entitled to return of the entire security deposit itself. That process is explained a bit (along with a link to the form) on the Utah Courts website.