Any expert "landlord" out there? I need help.

[ChefGirl]

Well, my folks rented out their house last year and the tenant moved out as of last Sunday. Late last Thursday night, he was tidy up the house and noticed there was a leak under the kitchen sink, he had a wrench with him, and he tried to tighten it up the value and the pipe broke and water started pouring out.....he ran to the neighbor's house to get them to call his wife to contact me. He got a hold of an emergency plumber and he came and fixed the broken pipe. Of course all these details was him telling me over the phone on Friday morning. He also mentioned that I shoudl contact our home insurance carrier.

Anyway, there was obvious water damages to the wood floor downstairs. We still have his security deposit. He sent us an email last Sunday and gave us his new address for his deposit. We just rec'd one estimate from a flooring company and they suggested complete replacement for $11,000. Yikes.

We were able to email him and gotten the plumber information. My husband plans to talk with him to get some more details. I can totally see the formal tenant arguing with us about the deposit.

Anyone out there has rental propeties and or similiar experience? The house was vacant last year and we just decided to put it on the market for rent last year. What a pain. We have been very reasonable with them. AC went out about a month ago and it was very hot and we couldn't get it to fixed that same day so I put them up in a hotel for the night. It's such a headache dealing with these issues with rentals. I'd appreciate your help.

Besides, he declined to take rental insurance and we only have the normal home insurance and I don't think ours will cover this type of damages.

[Pear]

I am fairly certain that renters insurance would not cover this type of damage. It is definitely something that would come up on the homeowners insurance side. Did you inform your insurance carrier that you were renting the property?

[ChefGirl]

I am fairly certain that renters insurance would not cover this type of damage. It is definitely something that would come up on the homeowners insurance side. Did you inform your insurance carrier that you were renting the property?

I told them it was not a long term thing. Either case, we still have their one month worth of security deposit. We are getting estimates and plan to withhold it for repairs/replacement, etc. I'm jsut not sure if we can get anythign beyond the security deposit from them. Besides, I'm pretty sure that they will fight with us on the security deposit.

[Pear]

I'm not a landlord so I don't know the legalities on the security deposit. As a tenant I would certainly argue that a tenant has an obligation to mitigate damage to the property. Stopping a leak might fall into that realm and they might try to take you to court if you withhold the deposit. No idea if they would win or not.

[nfowife]

Damages to your property would not be involving his rental insurance- that covers his belongings only.
Your homeowners insurance- and they hopefully knew you were renting out the home, as that does generally increase your rates- will be responsible for covering the damage to your flooring that was a result of the leak.

Honestly, I don't think you have much of a case keeping the deposit for this issue. The leaky pipe was the original problem, and if the tenant hadn't been there it would have caused some damage on it's own- he was trying to mitigate the damage. And he seems to have done the right thing overall. You can try looking for a landlord message board for your state or search "landlord rights" and your state on google for more info.

[ChefGirl]

Damages to your property would not be involving his rental insurance- that covers his belongings only.
Your homeowners insurance- and they hopefully knew you were renting out the home, as that does generally increase your rates- will be responsible for covering the damage to your flooring that was a result of the leak.

Honestly, I don't think you have much of a case keeping the deposit for this issue. The leaky pipe was the original problem, and if the tenant hadn't been there it would have caused some damage on it's own- he was trying to mitigate the damage. And he seems to have done the right thing overall. You can try looking for a landlord message board for your state or search "landlord rights" and your state on google for more info.

Does it matter if he tried to tighten it by using a wrench that led to the broken pipe?

[arivecchi]

Damages to your property would not be involving his rental insurance- that covers his belongings only.
Your homeowners insurance- and they hopefully knew you were renting out the home, as that does generally increase your rates- will be responsible for covering the damage to your flooring that was a result of the leak.

Honestly, I don't think you have much of a case keeping the deposit for this issue. The leaky pipe was the original problem, and if the tenant hadn't been there it would have caused some damage on it's own- he was trying to mitigate the damage. And he seems to have done the right thing overall. You can try looking for a landlord message board for your state or search "landlord rights" and your state on google for more info. This would be my off-the-cuff answer too.

Can you tell us what state the property is in? Landlord/tenant laws vary from state to state.

[niccig]

Does it matter if he tried to tighten it by using a wrench that led to the broken pipe?

DH did this with one of our pipes, it was so old and rusted it broke. If that is why your pipe broke and what the tenant did is considered a normal response to fix the initial problem, then I don't think it would matter that he broke the pipe. The tenant didn't willfully damage the pipe or the floor. He was trying to help.

Won't your house insurance pay for this? Why go after the security deposit if it's a house insurance matter?

Oh, and just as a FYI..maybe for the next tenants, show them the shut off valves for water/gas etc. Thinking back to when we rented, no one showed us those and it would have been a smart thing to do as I don't think I would have known how to shut them off in case of broken pipes.

[jenfromnj]

I also agree with the others (as a former landlord and non-legal-advice giving real estate lawyer :)) that, unless the tenant was doing something grossly negligent or deliberately causing an issue, you might be hard pressed to keep his deposit for this, let alone recover anything beyond that. Of course it's hard to say without knowing all the details, but if what the tenant did was basically reasonable, then I doubt you'd be able to keep his deposit.

I would check your state's landlord/tenant law regarding security deposits before deciding to try to keep his deposit--not sure what state you're in, but here in NJ, they are very specific about the landlord's obligations regarding the deposit, and failure of landlords to abide by the rules can get them into trouble. For instance, here, if you withhold the deposit and a judge ultimately finds that doing so was unreasonable, you can be liable for substantially more than the deposit amount.

As PPs have mentioned, renters insurance would not have covered this regardless. I'm not sure why you think your homeowner's insurance won't cover it? As long as you were honest with them about the status of the house (tenants, any vacancy) it should be covered.

[JBaxter]

that would be on your homeowners. I dont think you have a case for them to be responsible OR keeping their deposit. He acted within reason and sounds like the pipe had a issue.

[ang79]

My hubby is a landlord, I'll have him PM you info, he can be quite wordy :)

[crayonblue]

This should fall under your homeowners. His rental insurance wouldn't cover anything but his personal belongings. If you didn't take out homeowners, then you are out the money. I would think you owe him his security deposit back.

[crayonblue]

I told them it was not a long term thing. Either case, we still have their one month worth of security deposit. We are getting estimates and plan to withhold it for repairs/replacement, etc. I'm jsut not sure if we can get anythign beyond the security deposit from them. Besides, I'm pretty sure that they will fight with us on the security deposit.

Ouch, so you don't have homeowners? Or you do?

If I was your tentant, I would fight for my deposit back in this case too.

[gatorsmom]

I told them it was not a long term thing. Either case, we still have their one month worth of security deposit. We are getting estimates and plan to withhold it for repairs/replacement, etc. I'm jsut not sure if we can get anythign beyond the security deposit from them. Besides, I'm pretty sure that they will fight with us on the security deposit.

First, I guess I didn't understand. Was he doing work in the house before his lease was up? So, his lease ended on Sunday but the Thursday 4 days before he moved out the pipe broke? If that is the case, then I'd refer to the lease. If you have provisions in the lease agreement (which he'd still be covered under) about a certain amount of damage to the house being his responsibility, then you can deduct that from the security deposit. Frankly, though, I don't think a pipe bursting his his responsibility at all. I think it would be something that could happen no matter who was living there. In other words, I dont' think that you can deduct ANY of this from his security deposit. The only things you can really deduct from his SD are damages outside of normal wear and tear that he caused. So, for example any tears in the carpet that weren't there before he moved in, water damage from him overflowing the tub, etc.

Honestly, I think you will have to contact home owners insurance to cover this. I really dont' think it is fair to your renter to deduct this from his SD. It wasn't his fault the pipe burst unless he did something to cause this to happen.


We've owned over 25 rental properties in the last 10 years.

[alien_host]

We own a few rental properties. If it were me, I would not have charged the tenant through his security deposit for this. He was trying to help and it sounds like the pipes were old (not his fault) and he did it in good faith.

I think you will have an issue that you didn't notify your insurance policy that you were renting the property. We pay higher insurance premiums on our rental properties.

If the tenant wasn't there, the slow leak may have gone undetected until you guys noticed it and that may have caused damage anyway. Actually it could have been worse, a slow leak, you don't notice it, mold starts to grow etc.

I really don't think you can charge your tenant for the damage.

[ChefGirl]

My hubby is a landlord, I'll have him PM you info, he can be quite wordy :)

He did.....thank you...I just replied to him and asked hime a few more Q's....thanks.

[alien_host]

Just out of my own curiosity, what's the verdict on this damage? I'm interested since we do rent out properties and I'd love to know what is the correct way to handle.

I hope you get it resolved without too much trouble.

[ChefGirl]

Just out of my own curiosity, what's the verdict on this damage? I'm interested since we do rent out properties and I'd love to know what is the correct way to handle.

I hope you get it resolved without too much trouble.

I really don't have much update. My hubby just talked to the plumber that went over there last Friday morning at 1:00 in the morning. According to the plumber, the tenant trying to tighten up the value and broke the pipe. There was a lot and a lot of water in the living room and dining room due to the broken pipe. By my calcuation, the water has been sitting there for about two hours. Supposedly the tenant was using a shop vac trying to get rid of the water. By the way, the house was built in 2004 so it's relatively new. Per the plumber, the tenant was verbally abusive to him and short changed him for $75. He refused to pay the extra half of an hour. He's the type that would definitely fight for his SD.

I just filed a claim with my parents' homeowner insurance company. Just don't know how will turn out. The first estimate from a flooring company was $11K to replace the whole thing downstairs. I'm so fed up with stress right now it's unbelievable.

By the way, what type of insurance do you have? Rental dwelling coverage? Is that tied to your primary residence coverage for the liability coverage?

[JBaxter]

ours was a separate policy for a rental unit.

[TwinFoxes]

He's the type that would definitely fight for his SD.



I can't imagine many tenants who wouldn't fight in this situation, sorry.

I do hope your insurance comes through. I know water damage is horrible. Did the people who gave you the estimate see the damage? Are they sure the whole thing needs to be replaced?

[gatorsmom]

By the way, what type of insurance do you have? Rental dwelling coverage? Is that tied to your primary residence coverage for the liability coverage?

We have rental dwelling coverage on each property. They are separate from our primary residence coverage. We have an umbrella policy that covers all our properties, including our primary residence.

[ChefGirl]

We have rental dwelling coverage on each property. They are separate from our primary residence coverage. We have an umbrella policy that covers all our properties, including our primary residence.

What if you don't have a primary residence to tie your rental properties to? Would that just be a fire policy?

[nrp]

I am not a landlord and this is going against the grain of most of the prior response, so take it with a big grain of salt, but I feel like once a tenant undertakes to do a repair on the property, that they have a duty to do it properly. So, once he took the wrench to the pipe (which, as you point out in your subsequent post, was less than ten years old) and he broke it, I think he has taken on the responsibility for what happens as a result. If your tenant had called you to report the leak, you would have likely called a licensed and bonded plumber who would have repaired the leak correctly or, if the same problem occurred, would have probably been responsible for the damage. The fact that your tenant attempted to mitigate the damages is admirable, but doesn't negate that fact that but for his taking the wrench to the pipe, this in all likelihood would not have happened.

Now, practically speaking, I think that you are probably not likely to recover much from him in excess of the security deposit without tremendous effort and expense. But, I think you have good grounds for keeping it. And he may not sue you after all, since you could counterclaim for the full amount of the damages.

[TwinFoxes]

But, I think you have good grounds for keeping it. And he may not sue you after all, since you could counterclaim for the full amount of the damages.

But if she keeps it, and he sues, in a LOT of jurisdictions she'd have to pay treble damages or the like. And counterclaiming for $11,000 would cost her a lot in attorney's fees. Just things to think about, keeping the money is not risk free (and if he sues her and wins, the judgment goes on her credit report).

ETA: OP, do you have a rent board or the like in your jurisdiction? I bet they can give you some guidance.

[nrp]

But if she keeps it, and he sues, in a LOT of jurisdictions she'd have to pay treble damages or the like. And counterclaiming for $11,000 would cost her a lot in attorney's fees. Just things to think about, keeping the money is not risk free (and if he sues her and wins, the judgment goes on her credit report).

ETA: OP, do you have a rent board or the like in your jurisdiction? I bet they can give you some guidance.

I guess I was thinking that he would likely make a lot of noises about suing for it before filing, and OP could bring up the potential counterclaim to dissuade him. I doubt either side really wants to end up in court. Certainly, it depends on how much money we are talking. If the SD was $3K, it might be well worth the risk and hassle. For $300, probably not.

[gatorsmom]

I am not a landlord and this is going against the grain of most of the prior response, so take it with a big grain of salt, but I feel like once a tenant undertakes to do a repair on the property, that they have a duty to do it properly.

The problem with this thinking is that everyone has a different idea of what "properly done" means. We had tenants who offered to paint their house one time before they moved in. They painted up to where they could reach and stopped there. They lived like that for years. It's not what I think is done right but they thought it was fine.

I be afraid that if you asked that tenant to have the pipe fixed and water damage repaired, he'd go in there and work on it himself with a completely different idea of what is "fixed."

[WolfpackMom]

We own a few rental properties. If it were me, I would not have charged the tenant through his security deposit for this. He was trying to help and it sounds like the pipes were old (not his fault) and he did it in good faith.

I think you will have an issue that you didn't notify your insurance policy that you were renting the property. We pay higher insurance premiums on our rental properties.

If the tenant wasn't there, the slow leak may have gone undetected until you guys noticed it and that may have caused damage anyway. Actually it could have been worse, a slow leak, you don't notice it, mold starts to grow etc.

I really don't think you can charge your tenant for the damage.

:yeahthat:
You also mentioned him shortchanging the plumber, I wouldn't have had him pay the plumber either.

[nrp]

The problem with this thinking is that everyone has a different idea of what "properly done" means. We had tenants who offered to paint their house one time before they moved in. They painted up to where they could reach and stopped there. They lived like that for years. It's not what I think is done right but they thought it was fine.

I be afraid that if you asked that tenant to have the pipe fixed and water damage repaired, he'd go in there with a completely different idea of what is "fixed."

When I talked about doing it properly, I meant his attempt to repair the pipe in the first place. I guess I don't see a tenant as having the discretion of going and monkeying around with pipes without at minimum asking permission from the landlord first. If he had called and told OP that the pipe was leaking and she told him to go ahead and do his best, then that is a totally different situation. Here, he attempted plumbing work on the rental property without authority to do so (unless his lease specifies otherwise, which I think would be unusual). Once he caused the damage, then I think it is his financial responsibility to return the property to the same condition it was before he caused the damage - and whether he accomplished that would be a reasonableness standard.

[JBaxter]

What if you don't have a primary residence to tie your rental properties to? Would that just be a fire policy?

Its still a different type of policy vs the type of homeowners policy if it is your primary residence and you RESIDE there the majority of the year. If you didnt let the insurance company know it was a rental they could have grounds to deny your claim. In our county you also must register your property as a rental ( $35 fee / year) They do an inspection to see if it meets living standards.

[JBaxter]

When I talked about doing it properly, I meant his attempt to repair the pipe in the first place. I guess I don't see a tenant as having the discretion of going and monkeying around with pipes without at minimum asking permission from the landlord first. If he had called and told OP that the pipe was leaking and she told him to go ahead and do his best, then that is a totally different situation. Here, he attempted plumbing work on the rental property without authority to do so (unless his lease specifies otherwise, which I think would be unusual). Once he caused the damage, then I think it is his financial responsibility to return the property to the same condition it was before he caused the damage - and whether he accomplished that would be a reasonableness standard.

It goes back to what actually happened we had a leaky coupling and when DH tried to tighten it the whole thing cracked luckily it was in the basement on the same wall as the master valve for the house. Our house was built in 2001

[ChefGirl]

It goes back to what actually happened we had a leaky coupling and when DH tried to tighten it the whole thing cracked luckily it was in the basement on the same wall as the master valve for the house. Our house was built in 2001

I would say that sounds like what our tenant did....they called me at 11:15 PM last Thursday night on my cell phone saying there was a leak, etc......I didn't see the message until the next morning. He didn't have a phone with him so got the neighbor to call his wife to call me. She then called the plumber. He didn't ask us to pay him back for the repairs. Is that he admitting he did wrong? I don't know. The plunmber did tell him that the floor would buckle. What a mess! My life is full of stress right now....on top of eveything, all three kids are starting new schools this year. Ugh.....Calgone, take me away......or, better yet, let me hit a lotto.

[MontrealMum]

When I talked about doing it properly, I meant his attempt to repair the pipe in the first place. I guess I don't see a tenant as having the discretion of going and monkeying around with pipes without at minimum asking permission from the landlord first.

Here in Quebec if there is an issue with the house regarding imminent damage (to the dwelling) or potential harm to the residents, it is the renter's OBLIGATION to take care of it. They're supposed to inform the landlord as well, but they are to proceed immediately, they don't need permission. This is for leaking pipes, burst pipes, too much snow on the roof, trees that have fallen on the roof, broken heating in the winter...that kind of stuff. And the bill is then submitted to the landlord after the labor is undertaken. If the landlord refuses to pay the repair bill the tenant can legally deduct it from their next rent check or checks, or take the landlord to court.

In the OP's situation I would expect the tenant to go to the rental board and asked it to go to court (there's a separate court for rental issues here) to get his money back. Because of the way this thing is so clearly delineated here I wouldn't be surprised if the tenant won back his security deposit and his plumber fees, and that the OP would be in danger of being fined as well as bearing all court costs. Also, I would wonder if there is a penalty for renting out a dwelling w/o proper insurance on it as a rental.

OP, I'd check if you have a rental board in your area and see what it says about these sorts of things as they vary from place to place.

[nrp]

Here in Quebec if there is an issue with the house regarding imminent damage (to the dwelling) or potential harm to the residents, it is the renter's OBLIGATION to take care of it. They're supposed to inform the landlord as well, but they are to proceed immediately, they don't need permission. This is for leaking pipes, burst pipes, too much snow on the roof, trees that have fallen on the roof, broken heating in the winter...that kind of stuff. And the bill is then submitted to the landlord after the labor is undertaken. If the landlord refuses to pay the repair bill the tenant can legally deduct it from their next rent check or checks, or take the landlord to court.

That's a good point - and I think the case in most US jurisdictions as well. It all turns on the facts - from what OP wrote, I was thinking of a small drip from the pipe that was not an emergent situation. He could have stuck a bucket under the pipe and waited for OP to respond. If it was a bigger leak, and he made a reasonable attempt to fix it to contain further imminent damage, then I think he should not be held responsible for the further damage and should get his SD back and whatever he paid the plumber.

[JBaxter]

So did you go over the next morning? Did you run a couple dehumidifiers and fans?

[bubbaray]

Here in Quebec if there is an issue with the house regarding imminent damage (to the dwelling) or potential harm to the residents, it is the renter's OBLIGATION to take care of it. They're supposed to inform the landlord as well, but they are to proceed immediately, they don't need permission. This is for leaking pipes, burst pipes, too much snow on the roof, trees that have fallen on the roof, broken heating in the winter...that kind of stuff. And the bill is then submitted to the landlord after the labor is undertaken. If the landlord refuses to pay the repair bill the tenant can legally deduct it from their next rent check or checks, or take the landlord to court.




Quebec rental laws are unique in Canada. I don't think the "obligation" to undertake repairs falls on the tenant elsewhere in Canada. Usually its worded as a tenant "can" or "may" undertake emergency repairs and seek reimbursement from the LL, but not deduct it from the next month's rent.

[3isEnough]

It all turns on the facts - from what OP wrote, I was thinking of a small drip from the pipe that was not an emergent situation. He could have stuck a bucket under the pipe and waited for OP to respond. If it was a bigger leak, and he made a reasonable attempt to fix it to contain further imminent damage, then I think he should not be held responsible for the further damage and should get his SD back and whatever he paid the plumber.

I'm in complete agreement with NRP. In my view, the determination as to whether the landlord or tenant is liable for the damage depends entirely on whether the tenant's actions were reasonable given the circumstances. It's hard to tell in this thread without knowing more (and OP likely doesn't know more, likely only the tenant knows just how bad the leak was, whether more damage was imminent, etc.).

A tenant can't just undertake repairs and completely avoid all liability for the results. After reading the OP's initial post, I was with everyone else who suggested the landlord is liable, but then she added the info that the house was built in 2004. Since the plumbing is less than 10 years old, it makes it much more likely that the tenant was negligent in his repairs. And if he was in fact negligent, then there's a strong argument to be made that he's liable, or at least partially liable.

The above shouldn't be taken as legal advice, you're advised to consult an attorney of your own choosing, yada yada ;)