Should I go after my previous landlord for my security deposit ?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by WestCoastNole on August 24, 2009 - 1:02pm

I moved out of a rental house that we occupied for approximately two years at the beginning of the month. Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year, but then we encountered some serious issues with the neighbors and had to get the hell out of there.

We gave the landlord 30 days notice, hired professional cleaners and carpet cleaners, left the house in better shape than we moved into it, AND at the request of my landlord, obtained the services of a gardener to spruce up the yard ( i.e. another 200 out of my pocket) - When I contacted him and asked him when I could be expecting my security depoit back, he seemed genuinely surprised ( I suppose because we were breaking the lease ?) - I met him at the property later that day and he pointed to several minor items that in my opinion fall into the category of "Fair Wear and Tear" ( i.e. a ding in a wall here, a room that needed to be painted, ... etc ) - I have searched high and low in the rental agreement and was not able to locate any clause that speaks to a penalty for early lease termination (i.e. "Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date." - We extended the lease on three seperate occasions )

At the end of the day, more than 14 days has expired since we have terminated the lease and the landlord has NOT sent me an itemized statement documenting what he is claiming as expenses against my security deposit.

My question is - is there any reason why I should NOT contact him and demand the return of our security deposit - if he refuses, should I file a claim in small claims court or hire a lawyer ? It seems to me that the law is pretty clear in this case, and that a verbal notice that "I am not going to return any security deposit" is insufficient ...

Please let me know if you have any insight and/or advice for someone in this situation !

Thanks in advance for all of your help !

Regards,
WCN

Submitted by PCinSD on August 24, 2009 - 1:15pm.

I would not hire a lawyer or file suit. By your own admission you breached the rental agreement. If you file a lawsuit to get your security deposit, you will most likely be faced with a cross-complaint. A very winnable cross-complaint at that, and one which probably will be seeking an award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party, as well as the balance owed on the agreement.

There's no harm in sending a polite letter asking for the return of the security deposit, and a break-down of the allowable costs. However, if you don't get a positive response, I'd call it even and move on. Life's too short to get involved in litigation over something like this.

Good luck.

Submitted by LAAFTERHOURS on August 24, 2009 - 2:08pm.

I have broken leases twice in my lifetime, once to buy a home and a second for a job related transfer. In both situations, I offered to post ads, show the home and assist in finding a new tenant. This on top of the regular cleaning and leaving the place in better shape than when you received it.

I am going to face this same scenario again in the coming months as I am going to buy at some point. I told my current landlord of two years plus at the time I reupped my lease that I would probably be leaving before the year was up and that I couldnt plan around a home purchase.

This isnt so much an answer for you as it is a solution for others that may read this in the same situation. If you are up front with the landlord, help find new tenants, and have a good relationship with the landlord from the start you should have no problem breaking the lease. It also helps if your current rent is low relative to the surround rentals. It will make filling it that much easier.

Submitted by DataAgent on August 24, 2009 - 4:07pm.

Since you terminated the lease extension early, you should feel lucky all the landlord wants is your security deposit.

To fully terminate your lease, you should writeup some sort of early termination agreement with both of you signing the document. The document should say something like "In exchange for retention the security deposit, the landlord fully releases you from the lease extension dated 05/01/2009 etc etc." Without a termination agreement you still owe all rents up to June 2010 less the security deposit.

Submitted by UCGal on August 24, 2009 - 4:31pm.

I was in a situation (in Pennsylvania)... I'd rented the place with a 1 year lease because the rental agent assured me I could break the lease early if I had a house under contract. (I had been pushing for a month to month agreement.) She pointed out they were near a military base and the two reasons they'd let people break leases were job transfers and home purchases.

I turned in my notice with a copy of my sales contract. The rental office had me send it certified to the mother ship office.

They sent me a letter back congratulating me on my purchase and requesting 5.5 months rent (the balance of my 1 year lease). The manager I spoke with acknowleged I'd left the place clean and undamaged. They acknowleged I'd probably been told by the rental agent (Peggy Seely, agent at Blair Mill Apartments - I'll never forget her name) that I could break the lease under these terms without penalty. But the written contract was what mattered. I consulted an attorney, he said it might go either way in court - since I had written notes (in my writing) about the various places I'd looked at when I'd moved to the area - including a note about the terms of breaking the lease. Supporting my claim that I never would have rented it for the full 1 year term without the knowlege I could break it if I bought a house.

I ended up settling - giving up my deposit and 1 months extra rent.

I'm with data agent, You should be glad that is all the landlord wants.

One factor to pay attention to if your landlord goes after you for the balance of the term... If your landlord can rent the apartment back out - you are NOT responsible for the term of the lease once it's re-rented. It's worth driving by periodically to see if it's occupied.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 24, 2009 - 5:20pm.

DataAgent wrote:
Since you terminated the lease extension early, you should feel lucky all the landlord wants is your security deposit.

To fully terminate your lease, you should writeup some sort of early termination agreement with both of you signing the document. The document should say something like "In exchange for retention the security deposit, the landlord fully releases you from the lease extension dated 05/01/2009 etc etc." Without a termination agreement you still owe all rents up to June 2010 less the security deposit.

The landlord has 21 days to give you your full deposit minus deductions which must be itemized.

So he has not (yet) violated that regardless of what he has said verbally.

He can deduct for the rent he lost while trying to find a new renter. If that amount equals your rent and if he documents that in the statement he sends (which must be in writing) then cool.

If the situation interfered with your quiet enjoyment of the premises (sounds like it did), then the lease was broken before you moved out. Proving that is easier if you can document that you tried to get him to remedy this problem with the neighbors.

Your best bet is to send a letter or email re-stating the terms of the lease and asking for your deposit back (since his inaction regarding habitability and quiet enjoyment effectively broke the lease). Remind him that you are not seeking damages for breach of contract but that could change...

If he tells you to fuck off and does not give you an accounting of the deductions, then small claim his ass. Seriously, the accounting is a requirement for any rental situation in our great state.

Most landlords are tools (in my professional experience) and assume that renters are wimps (and act accordingly). They are usually right.

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 24, 2009 - 7:15pm.

The LL does have to give you the deposit back or reason why he isn't giving it back in 21 days. But even if you take him to court for it and he counters with the rest of the least. Your upside would be treble damages and your downside would the rest of the term of the lease. If you take him to court you better be prepared for the upside as well as the downside.

Submitted by WestCoastNole on August 24, 2009 - 9:37pm.

NOTE - The property has been rented out already ( we have been keeping tabs - the moving truck showed up on August 10th ) . . .

Submitted by Irish on August 24, 2009 - 10:14pm.

In my opinion your landlord is praying that you won't sue him in small claims court so he gets to keep your deposit. You should not let the rascal get away with it. Sounds like you've kept good documentation. Hopefully you took photos to document the condition of the place before you vacated. Start building your case and file suit. It's easy and cheap and you will win if you state your case clearly and have receipts/photos/letters and witnesses to back it up. Courts seem to be sympathetic to the tenant. Good luck and let's know how it turns out..

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 24, 2009 - 10:47pm.

WestCoastNole wrote:
NOTE - The property has been rented out already ( we have been keeping tabs - the moving truck showed up on August 10th ) . . .

Well that certainly limits your downside.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 25, 2009 - 12:06am.

Effective Demand wrote:
WestCoastNole wrote:
NOTE - The property has been rented out already ( we have been keeping tabs - the moving truck showed up on August 10th ) . . .

Well that certainly limits your downside.

No shit.

Ask for the money (in writing).

Refer him to this site:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landl...

Then go spend some time with the small claims division at the courthouse on Clairemont Mesa Blvd.

The legal advice desk is very helpful and they actually seem to enjoy their job.

Submitted by sobmaz on August 25, 2009 - 7:16am.

It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE. You stated """"""""""""""""""""""""""""Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.""""""""""""""""""""""

Yet.....you have so many saying "you broke a lease, be happy they don't get you for more" or something to that effect.

Wear and tear is not considered damage unless it is excessive. If you are familiar with the small claims process it wouldn't hurt to pursue it. However, lets say there was damage before you moved in. An example would be a red glass ring on the white cultured marble in the bathroom. Did you document that red ring before you moved in? It would be your word against his unless you wrote down every bit of preexisting damage on the move in report.

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 25, 2009 - 8:02am.

sobmaz wrote:

It is amazing to me that you clearly state you DID NOT BREAK THE LEASE
...
Yet.....you have so many saying "you broke a lease, be happy they don't get you for more" or something to that effect.

I think you are reading the below clause incorrectly. You are taking it to mean you can terminate the lease with 30 days notice, that is not what it says.

sobmaz wrote:
Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.

If that is a direct quote from his lease and he states "Back in May we signed a Lease extension through June of next year", then he did break his lease. I think you are reading the above clause incorrectly.

Then all the above clause spells out is how you would go about terminating the lease at the END of the lease or any extension of the lease. Basically you are going Month to Month at the end of the lease until you give or get 30 days notice to terminate.

Submitted by UCGal on August 25, 2009 - 8:12am.

That is very good news that he re-rented it. He cannot legally go after the balance of the lease.

Submitted by WestCoastNole on August 25, 2009 - 8:13am.

We have excellent documentation of the condition of the property both before and after, so I am not at all concerned about that ( I am a geek and somewhat anal when it comes to documentation and such - I would blame it on the army but truth be told it's just the way I am wired ;->) - I DO have an issue with the language in the lease that you quoted (i.e. Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this lease at the expiration of said Lease or any extension thereof by giving the other thirty (30) days written notice prior to the due date.) - that is, this language is ambiguous - Does the fact that we entered into lease number four override this language in lease number 3 ( i.e. we were not at the end of the last lease ? ) It seems reasonable to me that this could go either way. In any event, I have notified the landlord (nicely) and requested a full accounting and partial refund - I'll see how he replies.

Regards,
WCN

Submitted by WestCoastNole on August 25, 2009 - 8:21pm.

OK - I have heard back from my former landlord and he is proposing that we basically "call it even" - (i.e. he keeps my Security Deposit (2975 + 250 pet deposit), AND the 200 for the gardener ) - Here is his "accounting" of the charges that he is applying against the deposit:

1) Labor + cost of material: $1700 - $1900
2) 6% commision paid to realtor: $1881
(6% x $2850/months x 11months)
3) 20 days lost rent: $1983
(20 days / 30 days x $2975/month)
4) Monthly lost due to lower rent $1375 ($2975-$2850) x 11 months

1) Item 1 is nuts - this is what he paid a contractor to do some work around the house, but he has not included a detailed accounting of what the contractor did and what he is specifically charging me for ( i.e. I get the whole bill just because - I talked with the contractor when I was there and the majority of the work had NOTHING to do with our use of the property (i.e. there was illegal plumbing in the wall behind the kitchen that leaked and caused damage to the particle board that needed to be repaired ) - A good portion of the remainder of the work falls into the "fair wear and tear" in my book, but I am sure that that has alot to do with perspective so for argument's sake I'll assume that there is $250.00 above and beyond what is reasonable wear and tear.

2) WHAT - This is absurd - I am supposed to pay for his cost to rerent the unit ? Am I missing something here ?

3) Not too far off - I calculated 15 days so we are pretty close on this.

4) This is a surprise - since he rented out the place for less than he was charging me, Am I on the hook for the difference ????

I am going to sleep on this and put together a "counter offer" in the morning - ANY insight or opinions as to what I should and should not agree to would be, as always, very much appreciated.

Thanks again for all the input !!!

WCN

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 25, 2009 - 9:28pm.

WestCoastNole wrote:
OK - I have heard back from my former landlord and he is proposing that we basically "call it even" - (i.e. he keeps my Security Deposit (2975 + 250 pet deposit), AND the 200 for the gardener ) - Here is his "accounting" of the charges that he is applying against the deposit:

1) Labor + cost of material: $1700 - $1900
2) 6% commision paid to realtor: $1881
(6% x $2850/months x 11months)
3) 20 days lost rent: $1983
(20 days / 30 days x $2975/month)
4) Monthly lost due to lower rent $1375 ($2975-$2850) x 11 months

1) Item 1 is nuts - this is what he paid a contractor to do some work around the house, but he has not included a detailed accounting of what the contractor did and what he is specifically charging me for ( i.e. I get the whole bill just because - I talked with the contractor when I was there and the majority of the work had NOTHING to do with our use of the property (i.e. there was illegal plumbing in the wall behind the kitchen that leaked and caused damage to the particle board that needed to be repaired ) - A good portion of the remainder of the work falls into the "fair wear and tear" in my book, but I am sure that that has alot to do with perspective so for argument's sake I'll assume that there is $250.00 above and beyond what is reasonable wear and tear.

2) WHAT - This is absurd - I am supposed to pay for his cost to rerent the unit ? Am I missing something here ?

3) Not too far off - I calculated 15 days so we are pretty close on this.

4) This is a surprise - since he rented out the place for less than he was charging me, Am I on the hook for the difference ????

I am going to sleep on this and put together a "counter offer" in the morning - ANY insight or opinions as to what I should and should not agree to would be, as always, very much appreciated.

Thanks again for all the input !!!

WCN

Item 1:
He will need to provide receipts for this.
If he does not, he can't collect.
If he does, you can ask the contractor for elaboration.

Item 2:
Uhhh no.
He can't really charge you for this.

Item 3:
Whatever.

Item 4:
Uhh no again.

He can only deduct for
-negligent/excessive damage
-back rent (including days while he looked for a tenant)
-cleaning

Please remind him that California awards treble damages. Offer to cover the empty days and advise that if he does not return the rest, you will see him in court. Remind him about the video.

Submitted by PadreBrian on August 25, 2009 - 10:14pm.

If he has receipts, you are f-ed. You yourself said you broke the lease. Just think of it better than what the Irvine or Archstone would have billed you. Just move on.

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 26, 2009 - 12:01am.

Quote:
Please remind him that California awards treble damages.

Only for acting in bad faith. I don't think the court would take this as bad faith. He reasonably tried to rent the property and both sides are arguing over what is reasonable wear and tear & other issues.. that isn't bad faith.

Item #4 is valid, if he reasonably marketed the property and got lower rent for it then the difference between the lowered rent and what the OP agreed to in rent is what he is liable for. It would be up to you to prove he that he could get the same rent for the property but that could also involve longer marketing times.. which you would be liable for the empty days.

I really don't think you'll get much if anything and still have some downside liability. But I am not a lawyer.

I say take him to court! Only because I want to find out if I am right or not.

Submitted by DataAgent on August 26, 2009 - 5:19am.

WCN...
urbanrealtor is wrong. You have no case.

However, if you want a very tenant-friendly lawyer to review your situation, here's a good guy:
http://www.tenantslegalcenter.com/html/t...

I've sent several people to him and they all came away pleased with the results. His basic fee is less than $200. A bargain in the lawyer business. If you have any chance of recovering some cash from your landlord, he'll let you know. At a minimum, you'll learn a lot about Californis tenant law and be better prepared for next time.

Good luck.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 26, 2009 - 4:21pm.

DataAgent wrote:
WCN...
urbanrealtor is wrong. You have no case.

However, if you want a very tenant-friendly lawyer to review your situation, here's a good guy:
http://www.tenantslegalcenter.com/html/t...

I've sent several people to him and they all came away pleased with the results. His basic fee is less than $200. A bargain in the lawyer business. If you have any chance of recovering some cash from your landlord, he'll let you know. At a minimum, you'll learn a lot about Californis tenant law and be better prepared for next time.

Good luck.

Why is there no case? The law is pretty black and white on this stuff and tends to favor the tenant.

If you can show me I am wrong, I would be glad to expand my knowledge.

I have done this several times and I read a lot on tenant rights.

I am open to the idea that I am wrong but I would like it if you could be specific.

Also, lying about work being done (as alleged by the OP) counts as bad faith. Treble damages really would apply.

If it were me, I would do this in a heartbeat and would not spend more than the cost of small claim filing fee. Also, they have legal advisors there at the small claims office.

Submitted by uneven on August 26, 2009 - 6:07pm.

I just broke a lease too to move down to SD for a new job and I did some research. Basically, if there's no clause for breaking the lease you're responsible for the entire rent until he re-rents it. He has to "try" to get someone else which can be gray area but if he got someone in 15 days, he met his obligation. (mine took 3 months)

If he rents it for less, you owe the difference until your lease term is up. If he rents it for more (in my case he did) he owes you the difference until the remainder of the lease. He still must itemize within 21 days of moving out or you "may" be entitled to 3x the deposit, if you prove it's malicious. I think the 3x will be a long shot with a judge who knows you broke the lease.

So, I think it comes down to the rent for 20 days of vacancy+actual amount he paid for repairs (ask for receipts)+ anything he paid to re-rent it (ads, fees etc) + difference in what he'll get for the remainder of your lease term. You shouldn't have paid for the gardener, but its too late I know. That money is gone. If all the rest adds up to your $3200, walk away. I don't think you'll get a favorable outcome in court.

Your only chance if you do go to court is to prove the neighbor situation made the place "unlivable or dangerous" and you notified him and he didn't do anything about it.

Submitted by WestCoastNole on August 26, 2009 - 9:35pm.

Well, after thinking it through ( and discussing it with my better half ), we decided to leave it alone and just walk away. I spoke with the owner late today and then followed up with an email ( just in case ;->)

At the end of the day, we were able to get out of our lease and are no longer living with annoying, complaining, miserable neighbors. Life is too short and we are way too busy raising our family and eking out a living !

Yes we lost 3K, but in return we are now living in a bigger house up the hill, with more privacy, great neighbors, and I can go back to earning an honest day's living without having to worry about what drama is about to unfold on the home front! Life is good !

Thanks to everyone who posted advice and encouragement - PIGGs Rule !

- WCN

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 27, 2009 - 2:47am.

urbanrealtor wrote:
Why is there no case? The law is pretty black and white on this stuff and tends to favor the tenant.

It is pretty black and white and tends to favor the damaged party...

urbanrealtor wrote:
I am open to the idea that I am wrong but I would like it if you could be specific.

California Civil Code Section 1951.2 and basic contract law

urbanrealtor wrote:
Also, lying about work being done (as alleged by the OP) counts as bad faith. Treble damages really would apply.

You can reasonably disagree on fees and it not be bad faith. The LL made a good faith effort in mitigating damage (Heck I was impressed he rented it so quick!).

I think the calculus of the decision goes something like this.

If the LL didn't itemize deductions and work effort for repairs in 21 days of move out then he gives up the right to retaining security deposit and all the wear and tear type damage. BUT, that does not mean he gives up the right to the breach of contract damages he incurred and he would have to ask and then sue the OP for that money.

By the OP's count I see the breach of contract damage at a minimum:

15 days unrented = $1487
11 months at lowered rent = $1375

Then the OP and LL would be fighting about the stuff in the middle (how many actual days it was empty the LL claims 20, marketing fees to get it rented, OP's claim to the gardner money should be paid back). I think the difference between the deposit and minimum liability is small (a few hundred dollars) and the difference over the deposit and maximum liability is significant (couple grand) that calling it even sounds awfully darn good.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 27, 2009 - 5:03pm.

Effective Demand wrote:
urbanrealtor wrote:
Why is there no case? The law is pretty black and white on this stuff and tends to favor the tenant.

It is pretty black and white and tends to favor the damaged party...

urbanrealtor wrote:
I am open to the idea that I am wrong but I would like it if you could be specific.

California Civil Code Section 1951.2 and basic contract law

urbanrealtor wrote:
Also, lying about work being done (as alleged by the OP) counts as bad faith. Treble damages really would apply.

You can reasonably disagree on fees and it not be bad faith. The LL made a good faith effort in mitigating damage (Heck I was impressed he rented it so quick!).

I think the calculus of the decision goes something like this.

If the LL didn't itemize deductions and work effort for repairs in 21 days of move out then he gives up the right to retaining security deposit and all the wear and tear type damage. BUT, that does not mean he gives up the right to the breach of contract damages he incurred and he would have to ask and then sue the OP for that money.

By the OP's count I see the breach of contract damage at a minimum:

15 days unrented = $1487
11 months at lowered rent = $1375

Then the OP and LL would be fighting about the stuff in the middle (how many actual days it was empty the LL claims 20, marketing fees to get it rented, OP's claim to the gardner money should be paid back). I think the difference between the deposit and minimum liability is small (a few hundred dollars) and the difference over the deposit and maximum liability is significant (couple grand) that calling it even sounds awfully darn good.

It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific "breach of contract damages".

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. "Reasonable disagreement" is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landl...

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 27, 2009 - 9:42pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
It only sounds good if you are a landlord.
Contract law is not some western Koran.
Contracts get broken all the time.
I actually specialize in breaking lending and real estate contracts.
Its how I pay the bills.
Circumstances change and consequences (like a withheld deposit) are the remedy.
This is about negotiating what is an appropriate consequence.
But back to the specific issues mentioned:
The law allows for 3 types of deduction from deposit:
-unpaid rent (vacant days may arguably qualify)
-damage beyond wear and tear
-cleaning

There is no provision for some sort of non-specific "breach of contract damages".

That would be an illegal deduction.

Doing construction and fraudulently describing them as being necessary to repair extraordinary damage (as alleged by the OP) is by definition acting in bad faith. This is easy to clear up as receipts and specific clarification must be produced upon demand. "Reasonable disagreement" is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

That would also be an illegal deduction.

There is no provision for the change in the rental market or the need for an agent.

Those would also be illegal deductions.

In this case, I think the injured party would be seen as the tenant.

Further, deducting for the days of vacancy could (though would not necessarily) require that the landlord document that he advertised the property as soon as he got the notice (which the OP said he gave).
Finally, there is the bad faith again and the treble damages.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

Thats a long way to go and still be wrong.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on August 27, 2009 - 9:59pm.

How am I wrong?

I think I have addressed what you said.

I speak from both legal awareness and practical experience.

Again, I am willing to hear another side.

Submitted by Effective Demand on August 27, 2009 - 11:13pm.

What would be the liability of the OP for breaking the lease if there was no security deposit at all?

No condition issue, no wear and tear, plain and simple, the only issue is the breaking of the lease. What is his liability?

California Civil Code 1951.2

Quote:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1951.4, if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee:
(1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
(2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee's failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.
(b) The "worth at the time of award" of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) is computed by allowing interest at such lawful rate as may be specified in the lease or, if no such rate is specified in the lease, at the legal rate. The worth at the time of award of the amount referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus 1 percent.
(c) The lessor may recover damages under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) only if:
(1) The lease provides that the damages he may recover include the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award, or for any shorter period of time specified in the lease, exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that the lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; or
(2) The lessor relet the property prior to the time of award and proves that in reletting the property he acted reasonably and in a good-faith effort to mitigate the damages, but the recovery of damages under this paragraph is subject to any limitations specified in the lease.
(d) Efforts by the lessor to mitigate the damages caused by the lessee's breach of the lease do not waive the lessor's right to recover damages under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the right of the lessor under a lease of real property to indemnification for liability arising prior to the termination of the lease for personal injuries or
property damage where the lease provides for such indemnification.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.