Rental: am I responsible for all maintenance, including that caused by wear and tear, under $200? tl/dr: My property manager (PM) states that I'm responsible for all maintenance under $200 in the home, regardless of whether it is the result of damage I cause. This is on the basis of a clause in the lease that I find very ambiguous. This also is at odds with my (admittedly non-expert) understanding of real estate law. Is it possible I'm actually on the hook for repairs clearly caused by standard wear-and-tear, and which are not at all my fault? I just moved into a new rental home and there have been a number of maintenance items that have needed repair, which the owner has paid for. However the property manager has recently stated that we are responsible for all maintenance items under $200. That sounds very much at odds with my understanding of "real estate law" (aka the landlord is always responsible for basic wear and tear), and didn't sound like anything I read in the lease so I looked it over. There are two clauses in the lease related to maintenance: TENANT TO MAINTAIN; USE OF PREMISES; TENANT shall be responsible for the cost of all minor repairs and damages to the PREMISES due to the default, negligence, or willful misconduct of TENANT or TENANT'S family or guests, including [long list of perfectly reasonable things]. TENANT to alert the LANDLORD to any declining conditions inside and outside of the PREMISES included but not limited to [another list of things]. This seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me. Farther down it says: Maintenance: The Tenant agrees to properly maintain the home and complete, at his own expense, all daily maintenance EXCLUDING furnace/AC, water heater, appliance replacement and major repairs. The tenant is responsible for the cleaning of all clogged drain lines. If the home is located within a community governed by a Homeowners Association, Tenant does hereby agree to abide by the rules and bylaws of said Association (Exceeding $200 maintenance threshold contact owner/landlord) (emphasis mine). That last bit - Exceeding $200 maintenance threshold contact owner/landlord - is what the PM pointed to as establishing that I am responsible for all maintenance under $200. That is not at all how I understood that sentence. The reason is because this is a section talking about daily maintenance, i.e. the regular things that need to happen to keep a house running - changing air filters, light bulbs, snow removal, etc... and that the $200 threshold only applies to items such as these. However the PM believes this means that I'm instead responsible for any maintenance under $200. To pick a specific example, the basement just lost all power. An electrician just left and determined that there is a wiring issue in the walls and a new wire needs to be run. From the perspective of the PM, if the electrician charges less than $200 it is my responsibility because of this clause in the lease. I can't decide if I simply misread this lease because of my own expectations on the division of duties between tenant and landlord (aka the landlord is always responsible for all normal wear and tear - such as a wire breaking somewhere in the walls), or if the PMs understanding of this clause is completely at odds with basic property management law and therefore incorrect. Obviously though I need to figure out which is the case so I know how to respond. If I signed a lease I shouldn't have because I misread an important clause, then I'm going to have to eat this one and let it be the cost of learning an important lesson... So... Is my PMs understanding of the situation correct?
Bizarrely, it depends on where you live in Kentucky. There is a law, the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (KRS 383.500 to 383.705) which states limits on residential leases (otherwise, the matter would be governed by the terms of the contract and common law). The state didn't enact those laws as enforceable in the state, it "made them available" for cities, counties and urban-county governments to adopt unmodified (or not). So it depends in part on whether your locale adopted the law. Assuming it did, in the definitions, (13)"Security deposit" means an escrow payment made to the landlord under the rental agreement for the purpose of securing the landlord against financial loss due to damage to the premises occasioned by the tenant's occupancy other than ordinary wear and tear. (emphasis added) That would mean that they can't take the cost of carpet cleaning, painting etc. out of your security deposit. §383.595 (again, if applicable) states the obligations of the landlord, so he must Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by him So it depends on whether the URLTA was enacted in your jurisdiction. This page indicates where that is the law, and also urges you to read the lease.
In RI it appears that two days notice and a reasonable purpose is enough. There are states that list the reasons a landlord can access a unit; RI is not one of those states. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title34/34-18/34-18-26.HTM
I am assuming in this answer that the lease or rental agreement provides the landlord with a right of access for required maintenance. The question is not clear on that point. If there is a specific and reasonable ground for refusing a particular representative or agent of the landlord, you might be able to do so. If, for example, that particular worker had previously insulted you in your apartment, or had attempted to steal from you there, you could probably refuse entrance and request the landlord to send a different worker to do the job. But in general the landlord may choose his or her agents, and if it is a reasonable for an agent to be admitted, you must admit whatever agent the landlord sends. You can probably demand reasonable notice, depending on the terms of the lease. You may be able to demand to be present when the agent is to be in the premises, again depending on the lease. But I fo not think that the tenant can arbitrarily choose which agent the landlord will use.
Is it possible to break my lease without a penalty due to this? No. A reminder to the landlord or reporting with the authorities the violation is most likely to dissuade the landlord from incurring nuisances earlier than 7AM. The landlord might be mindful enough to ensure that work done between 6AM to 7AM does not disturb tenants. Even if the landlord insisted on causing disturbances earlier than 7AM, the situation is very unlikely to justify tenants' breach of the lease. That is because the annoyance from 6AM to 7AM does not render (or is not what renders) a unit unlivable. The landlord's violation could be actionable if it causes to the tenant(s) an provable loss.
There is, in general, a rule that all matters connected with a single transaction or event should be included in a single legal case. Different jurisdictions apply this diffidently, and I haven't yet researched this in Maryland specifically. Also, if you agree to pay a part of what the landlord claims, you will quite likely be asked to sign a settlement agreement as part of the transaction. This is likely to include a release of all claims connected with your tenancy at the apartment. If it does, and you sign the agreement, you will be giving up any claim you might otherwise have because of the failure to properly notify you. You may want to consult a lawyer about this. A one-time consultation might not be very expensive. If you sued the landlord, you could do so in small claims court, where legal costs are significantly lower than in other courts.
Fair wear and tear Means the normal deterioration of a property from ordinary, everyday use. Exposure to the elements, time, as well as day to day living can cause fair wear and tear. Breakages as a result of normal use are also wear and tear. Damage is either intentional or a result of usage that is not normal. So, if the closet has failed through normal use - throwing a wheel on a runner, a hinge or latch breaking in normal use - then it's your responsibility. If it is a result of abnormal use - slamming, continuing to operate when something is clearly wrong - then it's your tenant's responsibility. However, there are commercial consideration beyond the legal ones. A tenant with a 3-year record of on-time rental payments and no other demands beyond a broken closet? Fix it and keep the tenant happy.
he is jointly liable for the remaining 3 months, even though he never signed anything. Is this true? That seems unlikely. The lease is between Adam and the landlord. Although the lease might have language making all tenants jointly and severally liable, it would affect Bob only if it can be proved that he was aware of those terms when he moved in. Your description does not elaborate on any agreement(s) between Adam and Bob. But Adam is not allowed to impose on Bob any obligations merely because relations between them broke down. Absent a contract between Adam and Bob, the question of whether Adam is entitled to any recovery from Bob could only be assessed on equitable grounds.
No landlord-tenant laws that I have ever seen impose an obligation on a landlord to give a point by point response to everything in an email from a tenant. However, a tenant probably has the right or obligation to provide a landlord with written notification of a problem requiring remedy. You might then be required by law to provide a specific reply within some time frame, for example "We will fix that tomorrow afternoon", or "We are not required to fix that": it would depend on the jurisdiction and the accusation. Some caution in how you respond is warranted, because your answers can be used against you in a court of law, thus you want to be sure that your response is not misleading, and that you don't accidentally promise to do something that you won't actually do. There is a concept of "adoptive admission", where silence can be used against you. A typical case is if Smith says to Jones "That was really cold-blooded, the way you murdered Thompson", and Jones does not respond to the accusation – that fact can be introduced as evidence, because there is an assumption that if Jones were really innocent, they would protest the accusation. I don't see any way for "failure to respond to everything" in this manner could constitute an adoptive admission – an "admission" means that you directly or indirectly indicate that you did a thing, which is not the same as ipso facto agreeing to something (for example, not replying to a statement "I'd like my rent reduced by $100 per month" is not an "adoptive agreement").