Re: First, last and security deposit - Landlord Forum thread 210893

Re: First, last and security deposit by scott (la) on October 22, 2010 @02:49

What the hell do you need that much money for? I have never had a landlord/pm that didn't lie about the condition of the apartment and deduct security deposit as they saw fit. You people disgust me.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]

Re: First, last and security deposit by Stephen (NV) on November 16, 2010 @11:49	[ Reply ]

It would be prudent to enter the unit with the renter prior and take pictures together that you both have copies of for documentation of original condition. It is not gouging the tenant if you collect 1st, last, and security this protects the property owner. Just as one renter can rent elsewhere, another renter will come along who has the appropriate funds...

Re: First, last and security deposit by Doug (Colorado) on March 28, 2016 @20:11	[ Reply ]

Tenants who do not comply with a move-out date or eviction notice can easily owe a full month of rent, meaning there is nothing left in the security deposit to cover damages and other charges, which may include the costs of eviction. No doubt there are unscrupulous landlords, but many tenants will take full advantage of the delays offered by law to cost the landlord more than a single month's security deposit. Many landlords themselves are on the edge of meeting expenses and can't afford to take a chance on a tenant. It's not necessarily (or usually) greed that necessitates a certain level of security deposit. I'd also add there's an asymmetry; as much as it can be a pain to deal with unfairly retained security deposits, at least you can file suit. It's nearly impossible to go after a tenant who has skipped out with a balance due.