What the heck is an AOA office? I think any letters or offices or legal mumbo jumbo is way more than needed for something like this.

No dude, you're not painting the unit on your own. You can hire it done by choosing from a list of our painters with a color selected from our group of colors. You are under no circumstances permitted to paint the unit at your own discretion. If you do, you will receive notice to vacate.

(Now, you are in California. You very well may have to paint for him after you fold his laundry and before you wash his dishes :).

It says no Painting without Landlords written permission.

I gave no permission.

The ADA Office is putting you on. They are famous for their hatred of landlords and they are jealous about granting tenants every possible privilege.

I have found it useful to specify in my lease that tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements in or to the demised premises without the prior written consent of landlord and that any alterations, additions or improvements that may be made or installed by tenant upon the demised premises without the prior written consent of landlord shall be deemed damage to the premises, and LESSEE shall restore the premises to their original condition upon vacating the premises.

I'm in California also and have never heard of this and strongly doubt it.

For future needs, state in your rental agreement that no alterations can be performed by your tenant without your prior written approval.

Josh,

My lease is clear: No.

I'm not in WackiCali but the Apt Owners Assoc does not sound like a law maker.

BRAD

Repainting-

One approach for determining the amount that the landlord can deduct from the tenant’s security deposit for repainting, when repainting is necessary, is based on the length of the tenant’s stay in the rental unit. this approach assumes that interior paint has a two-year life. (some landlords assume that interior paint has a life of three years or more.)

length of stay

less than 6 months

6 months to 1 year

1 year to 2 years

2 or more years

deduction full cost two-thirds of cost one-third of cost no deduction

using this approach, if the tenant lived in the rental unit for two years ‘ nor more, the tenant could not be charged for any repainting costs, no matter how dirty the walls were.244

4. other damage to walls

I think this is what they are referencing?

Generally, minor marks or nicks in walls are the landlord’s responsibility as normal wear and tear (for example, worn paint caused by a sofa against the wall). therefore, the tenant should not be charged for such marks or nicks. however, a large number of holes in the walls or ceiling that require filling with plaster, or that otherwise require patching and repainting, could justify withholding the cost of repainting from the tenant’s security deposit. in this situation, deducting for painting would be more likely to be proper if the rental unit had been painted recently, and less likely to be proper if the rental unit needed repainting anyway. Generally, large marks or paint gouges are the tenant’s responsibility.245

5. common sense and good faith

She was in the apt 3 years.

AOA rep went through a copy of my security deposit accounting and gave me 1/2 of the cost of paint the cost of primer and sanding walls This is additional cost of product and cost of labor that I wouldn’t have if walls were not repainted.

Josh,

You are probably correct that the usual presumed life of paint is 2 years. But that applies when considering deduction from SD and landlord needs to repaint. There is no requirement that the apartment get painted (unless it affects living there) and no right of tenant to paint by himself.

I heard that section 8 and some welfare grants make requirements that, in order for the subsidy to be paid, LL must put the unit into what they call livable (not tenantable) condition, including new paint.

In NC we cannot charge for painting that is normal wear and tear. I assume that is what your 2 years law is referring to. However, we are allowed to charge for any upcharges for damage to the walls one of which is any dark colors that increases the cost to return the property to its original condition.

How many times I gotta tell ya,

No. Most leases say something about tenants making changes to apartments so it probably says they can't do that. I think my Blumberg lease says they can't change anything without written permission from me. Not that they read the lease but it's there.

Apartment Owners Association? I've never heard of this.

Hollis & Doogie

High Five - low 10 wiggle.

Amazing how durable surfaces are.

AllyM- Yup go buy your own place. Rip it up, paint it dark purple, tattoo it if you have run out of your own skin.

My property is not your DIY training wheels.

You should see the baseboard and door trim "repair" from their dog chewing. Looks like someone made some nasty cake batter let sit out for days then threw it at the repair area and spread it around with a french knife from their kitchen. Nothing smooth about it. It is in big globs. Hysterical!

Tip to Tennies for working on your OWN property.

You don't try to fill it in with bondo. You replace the wood trim. But then you would have to have the tools and the skill to make the miter cuts. Know how to pre-drill holes for the right length and size of the finishing nails. Way above their skill level.

Vee Thank you for making a legal point on record about Paint warranty. The 2 year thing smacks of CA's usual Pro Tenant to a fault attitude. I just roll with it work out the best solution for the least work and stress. You can get lost in it and end up tripping over dollars to pick up pennies.

I always come away from these "board of directors meetings" with a more empowered attitude then before I posted. Thanks for that gift one and all!

The paint doesn't wear out. But the painted walls get dirty and get scuffed, aside from actual damage. The dinginess and scuffing (& fading) is considered to be wear & tear, and landlord is not permitted to charge tenants for paint replacement after two years absent actual damage. Thats not a requirement for LL to paint after 2 years; it only has to do with use of the SD.

If walls are chipping and flaking, it might be harmful to tenant health, but that is not a matter of aesthetics, its an actual health problem, and on that basis a court might find a dwelling to be uninhabitable ("untenantable" in CA).

Some rent subsidy providers will not give a subsidy to a tenant to move into a unit that they find unsuitable. So, if landlord wants to receive the subsidy, he will have to satisfy the granting agency, and thats what they want. There is no requirement for LL to rent to subsidized tenants.

AOA: American Apartment Owners Association

Hmmmm, So to deduct from deposit or to bill after deposit, don't charge to paint - charge to clean the walls so that the paint will stick!

Really, Barb, you aren't serious, are you?

A judge (an ELECTED judge) around here will be intelligent and educated, and will see through that ruse instantly. The idea is that tenants are responsible for DAMAGE and not for wear & tear. SD is not meant to compensate LL for his turnover expenses.

Mosche wrote --> The paint doesn't wear out. But the painted walls get dirty and get scuffed, aside from actual damage. The dinginess and scuffing (& fading) is considered to be wear & tear, and landlord is not permitted to charge tenants for paint replacement after two years absent actual damage. Thats not a requirement for LL to paint after 2 years; it only has to do with use of the SD.

If walls are chipping and flaking, it might be harmful to tenant health, but that is not a matter of aesthetics, its an actual health problem, and on that basis a court might find a dwelling to be uninhabitable ("untenantable" in CA).

" damage is the primary reason walls will need to be refinished "

At least for me, the primary reason to finish walls is dirt, fading, scuffing when a tenant leaves after a few years. There is no question to me that the walls need to be finished, and it is my expense after a tenant has lived there for a few years. I find that the technique of touching up wherever the wall is not perfect works find, and results in a wall that looks like newly painted and is suitable for a new tenant to move in, without a lot of effort or expense.

Where do I defend the tenant who defy the written rule of getting written permission? There is no rule that you can write that will take away a tenant's right to live reasonably in the dwelling, creating wear & tear in the process, or his right not to be cheated contrary to the common sense rule that LL is responsible for restoration of wear & tear.

Tenants have rights, and those are part of rules & common sense, like the right to wear & tear and the right not to have his SD withheld against rules and common sense. Its not CA, its understanding what laws say and how they are applied. Its also the right thing to do.

I don't know anything about San Juan Capistrano, but it sure is pretty when I pass by on the freeway.

I use Glidden, ULTRAHIDE 250 which is < $20/gallon and works just fine. The color matches perfectly to paint purchased 30 years ago, long before the original SINCLAIR paint company was sold to DULUX, then to Imperial Paint and then to Glidden. The paint is self-leveling, anti-fade, environmentally safe under strict CA standards. You can't tell if a scuff is covered by fresh paint or never painted since original. A touch-up job turns out PERFECT for a new

incoming tenant and easily repairable for a departing tenant at low cost and easy application.

But painting due to wear & tear is MY RESPONSIBILITY. not that of the departing tenant. Its part of the expense of turning over a property.

I typically use 3 years as a baseline for paint for my deposit accounting.

If I had to guess the logic, the tenant should have the opportunity to get 100% of their deposit back - there for they should be allowed to paint the unit back to the original condition.

only if you agree. NO state law requires that. i advise against it. it sounds like you are confusing deposit accounting with operating practices.

if you do agree you need to lay down rules about color, type or finish AND skillfulness of installation

NOW HERE'S WHAT I KNOW FROM SMALL CLAIMS HERE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE I HAVE SEEN LOT'S OF LANDLORDS GET WHACKED, and where i have not ever been wacked.

the courts GENERALLY use 3 years for paint, carpet and window coverings. GENERALLY. i have tagged tenants for damage to hardwood since those often come with very long life warranties. if the place was hammered by a dog chewing baseboards or clawing doors and jambs the court will allow full repair. holes punched in walls...they also allow for repair and restoration and allow full wall paint. i have had to prime and paint walls and ceiling badly sooted by cheap candles...court allowed full cost for that.

don't play fast and loose with deposits and don't expect the homes to be perfect. repairs and maintenance are part of the landlords cost of ownership. what courts look for is normal wear and tear. if they place got "frat party'd" you'll have little trouble making that case, if it got lived in for four years...that's on you

no holes need be drilled for finish nails...get a decent finish gun and they go in off of ANY pancake compressor.

i strongly advise that anytime you are at a courthouse for any reason find an hour to sit and watch some small claims court cases...it's the best free education you can get and you'll be able to see other folks get their checkbook lightened...not yours. you get all the experience with none of the torment and expense!

Josh, the idea that california is overly tenant friendly is simply not true. SOME cities have rent control but by and large the place is pretty fair.

THAT SAID THE MOVE IS AFOOT AGAIN FOR STATEWIDE RENT CONTROL...if it gets on the ballot and if it appears to be passing i will advise the tenants that ALL rents are going up 25% the week before the election.

Mike has pointed out a fact that so many non-CA posters don't understand: that, with the exception of rent control, CA law and courts are extremely logical and fair. They do an excellent job of balancing rights of both renters and landlords. It works for everyone.

What is not understood is that it is a much more sophisticated situation that many less well-educated posters from more rural states understand. CA has several OUTSTANDING law schools (Stanford, Boalt Hall (Berkeley), Hastings, UCLA) and excellent relations for discussion. Scholarly papers have pointed this out. English Common law is well-understood and principles are followed, with excellent decisions about when and how they should be modified to meet changing circumstances. It works.

A bill to remove landlord protections from rent control's worst effects was thrown out earlier this year. In response, the "tenant lobby" is trying to promote it being placed on the ballot in November as a citizen's initiative. As Mike has pointed out, if it passes, then all landlords are planning huge rent raises, and voting FOR the ballot measure will actually bring a large windfall to landlords at tenant expense.

By now, the legislature understands that the problem is NOT LANDLORDS, but the shortage of sufficient housing stock in a state with exploding population, and its on that basis that the legislature in January threw out an identical bill against the powerful liberal lobby.

Getting back to the original post. We discovered things along the way.

I still say that paint having a life span of 2 years is unreasonable and excessive. As Vee put on record that paint warranty is usually 10 years.

The issue, of course, is NOT how long paint lasts.

The issue is, can landlord deduct from SD for repainting an apartment with dirty (no damaged) walls, and answer is NO. If the walls need repaint due to wear & teat, then that is landlord's responsibility, not tenant's. The court figures that, very roughly, walls get dirty due to wear & tear in about 2-3 years.

That doesn't mean that LL owes new paint for dirty wall every 2-3 years. It means that, after 2-3 years, LL got his money's worth out of a rental paint job, and cannot bill tenant for repainting dirty (not damaged) walls.

This rural poster got his graduate degree from Chapman. Also, this non-California poster had 13 units in California from 1989-2005 and completed an internship at the San Diego County Apartment Association. I pulled out of the market because Ray Charles could see that 30% annual returns on investment were not sustainable.

I choose to leave because it makes sense to leave. Too many people there, too many idiots there, way too many special interest, and too many people with huge egos that are better than everyone else.

California is a nice state - its the people there that make it what it is........Overseas, California just appeared to be the place where dumb things happen. Case in point - some 20 years ago a tenant stole a tank and ran it through a neighborhood and onto an interstate in SoCal. Real nice place. With the exceptions of the riots, Forrest fires, illegal immigrant streams, earthquakes, rent control, lobby groups, traffic, NIMBY attitude, folks trying to make a name for themselves, pollution, lack of water, shootings, gangs, and this list can go on and on - California is a wonderful place.

So investing in Cash flowing properties can be considered boring and unsophisticated. I am absolutely okay with counting my money out here as opposed to listening to why someone who is obese should get a handicap sticker or not.

But nothing about the courts and the logic of CA laws.

CA is a comfortable place and easy to carry out the rental business, BUT, you have to understand more about the logic of the law than you need to do elsewhere, because it is more sophisticated.

Chapman is truly one of the distinguished universities in the world. I wan't aware that they were accredited to give graduate degrees, but I guess that things change with time.

At the risk of showing off my ego, I am on a high this weekend because a young lady of my genetic acquaintance received her acceptance e-mail Thursday night to attend The University of Chicago (> 90 Nobel Prize winners) next year. She also received notification Thursday night that she has been named a National Merit Scholar finalist (after being named a semi-finalist in December, beating her mother who was merely a quarter-finalist). She is now in the running for actually getting the scholarship award.

The point is that CA is really a rather sophisticated place (although my acquaintance lives in Washington, DC) and the standards by which CA carries on its laws and courts are truly on a high level, and living here raises your own personal standards as you participate in CA life.

I congratulate you on having studied and earning a graduate degree, especially while breathing the Orange County air. But you might want to review the sophistication of your education and apply it to problems like, what SHOULD good law do about a landlord who wants to deduct the cost of painting when the tenant did nothing wrong except to live there, but the walls exhibit some use when the landlord turns over the dwelling to the next tenant, or what SHOULD it do about a tenant who wantonly damages and destroys walls during his tenancy, and especially, how should the laws be written by the legislature and interpreted by the courts to distinguish the latter situation from the former, and guide the judge to the really correct conclusion, consistent with principles of Common Law? Check CA laws and courts against anywhere else. I have no doubt that wherever you are will catch up, sooner or later.

I rest my case........No one in California has an ego (yeah right).

Folks in California are on the cutting edge of creative real estate. Thanks to them we have PacTrust, subject to investing and a variety of options as real estate tools. One of my mentors some 25 years ago from Rancho Santa Fe - AD Kessler. Unfortunately we lost him about a dozen years back.

The only thing I have to say is this topic is coming from California and one of the logical interpretations of your glorious laws from on of California's own special interest groups. IMO, California is getting everything it deserves.

there're plenty of reasons to leave california...if i could just get over my love of surfing and 80 degree weather in january without the expense and distance of hawaii...

we were at one time the beacon to the world and now are not.

we used to make locomotives, aircraft, cars, furniture, chemicals, electronics, we refined petroleum and were the source for nearly 100% of all the foam surfboard blanks worldwide...and we learned recently that the nuts in sacramento are working hard daily to drive the tesla plant from oakland with a threat of unionization. now we only make really great food and LOTS and LOTS of excellent beer. and that's all. san diego alone has over 150 breweries. alas, that's not enough and i will likely exit for many reasons one might imagine. the taxation is world class bad, the roads are insufferable, cost of living is RE-diculous, the unions run the joint, schools are so bad that NOT ONE district in the entire state has a 50% hispanic proficiency rate for math and english. NOT ONE.

I fully understand what are saying. I used to invest in La Mesa and lived in PB.

The cash flow is pretty good out here. Good enough cash flow that you can vacation to Calie or Maui or other nice places when the weather gets you down. I used 1031s to move the cash to a low cost area. No says you actually have to live where you park your money.

California did wonderful things for me especially when I was younger. I owe the SDCIA a debt for the knowledge they imparted. Where I sold a triplex there - I can get 23 rent checks here. Where SoCal liens to the further left, I am more on the right. There isn't a correct answer, just answers that work better for some and not so much for others.