ohiolandlord
08-03-2008, 07:13 PM
A landlord in Ohio can only charge a tenant for damage which is not the result of reasonable wear and tear. Thus, if the only damage to carpet is that there are some areas of heavier usage near a door to the outside or other high traffic areas, the landlord takes quite a chance that this might be found to be normal wear and tear, and not chargeable against the deposit.
But a trickier pitfall for the landlord is the age of the carpet. If the carpet was already five years old when the tenant moved in, even if the tenant completely destroyed the carpet with excessive damages, the landlord cannot charge the tenant the full price to replace it. This is because carpets, like tires on a car, do not last forever. If the Court determines that the life expectancy of carpet in an apartment is ten years, and the carpet cost $1000, and if the court finds that the carpet was five years old when the tenant moved in and seven years old when the tenant moved out, and if the court finds that the tenant destroyed the carpet with excessive wear and tear, then the court would properly award the landlord $300 because that is the pro-rated life of the carpet that was left.
It gets harder still for a landlord who was not the owner when the carpet was purchased. It is the landlord's burden of proof to establish his damages against the security deposit. If the landlord does not know how old the carpet is, then it is highly unlikely that a court will consider guesswork evidence of how old the carpet was at the start and at the end of the lease agreement.
Lastly, if a landlord replaces low pile indoor/outdoor carpet with high grade berber carpet, the court is only going to award the remaining pro-rated life on the original crappy carpet.
The lesson here is that if the landlord is not careful and bases his charges against a deposit almost entirely on carpet replacement, he could end up paying double damages and attorneys fees to a tenant under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.16.
But a trickier pitfall for the landlord is the age of the carpet. If the carpet was already five years old when the tenant moved in, even if the tenant completely destroyed the carpet with excessive damages, the landlord cannot charge the tenant the full price to replace it. This is because carpets, like tires on a car, do not last forever. If the Court determines that the life expectancy of carpet in an apartment is ten years, and the carpet cost $1000, and if the court finds that the carpet was five years old when the tenant moved in and seven years old when the tenant moved out, and if the court finds that the tenant destroyed the carpet with excessive wear and tear, then the court would properly award the landlord $300 because that is the pro-rated life of the carpet that was left.
It gets harder still for a landlord who was not the owner when the carpet was purchased. It is the landlord's burden of proof to establish his damages against the security deposit. If the landlord does not know how old the carpet is, then it is highly unlikely that a court will consider guesswork evidence of how old the carpet was at the start and at the end of the lease agreement.
Lastly, if a landlord replaces low pile indoor/outdoor carpet with high grade berber carpet, the court is only going to award the remaining pro-rated life on the original crappy carpet.
The lesson here is that if the landlord is not careful and bases his charges against a deposit almost entirely on carpet replacement, he could end up paying double damages and attorneys fees to a tenant under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.16.