If a landlord replaces a broken appliance with upgrade that costs twice, isn’t the tenant only responsible for paying for the cost of original?
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
If a landlord replaces a broken appliance with upgrade that costs twice, isn’t the tenant only responsible for paying for the cost of original?
Tenant accidentally broke 15 year old toilet and landlord replaced broken toilet with an upgrade that cost more than twice as much as the original. He wants tenant to pay for the upgrade. Is this legal? Shouldn’t tenant be responsible for paying to replace appliance that was broken and not paying for an upgraded $500 toilet?
Asked on October 20, 2011 under Real Estate Law, California
Answers:
FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 12 years ago | Contributor
In general the answer to your question is that the tenant who broke the appliance (as in your case a toilet) is responsible for the cost of the item broken based upon its then current fair market condition taking into account wear and tear.
If the landlord in your case purchases a replacement toilet that costs well more than the cost of the initial one, it is not acceptable to charge the tenant for the excess cost.
To be sure with your position, you need to carefully read your written lease for your rental concerning replacement of damaged items. The agreement controls the obligations owed to you by the landlord and vice versa in the absence of conflicting state law. You need to make sure that there is nothing in the lease stating that you have to pay current fair market vale of an item damaged as a tenant of the rental.
Good luck.
SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 12 years ago | Contributor
You are essentially correct. The tenant would be responsible for the current replacement cost of the broken appliance--i.e. the cost now to replace it with either the same thing (if available) or an appliance of the closest comparable available quality (if the original make/model is no longer available). This will (presumably) be more than the original cost, owing to inflation (15 years worth, in this case), but the landlord is entitled to the current replacement cost--he's not limited to receiving what it cost a decade-and-a-half ago.
If the landlord voluntarily chooses to upgrade the quality, the landlord would be responsible for the difference between replacement cost and upgrade cost. The exception would be if appliances of the quality of the original are simply not available anymore--then the tenant has to pay for the upgrade to the closest quality unit that can be found.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.