Security Deposit Dispute with Subletter

[lucite]

Hi,
I (legally & officialy) sublet my rented apt. to a subletter for 10 months.

Upon moving in, the subletter asked whether they could paint the walls - I agreed on the condition that they would return them to their original condition.

I returned to find that the subletter had:

1. Thrown out a bunch of my belongings.
2. Painted over my raw-brick wall - and did not return it to its raw state but merely painted it over a color similar to the original raw look.
3. Painted over the walls they had painted 'erratically':
- they left parts out around objects they did not feel like moving from against the wall
- they used a different color of paint than the original walls which led to the following problem: since they had painted only some of the walls of my living room to start off with, I now have a room with newly painted white walls and the old beige-colored walls.

When I returned to the apt. I noticed issue #1 and issue #3 and we agreed that I would keep his security deposit for these items. But I failed to notice issue #2 (the painted raw-brick wall) until after we settled on the security deposit compensation. I did inform him by email a few days later that I was mad about the brick wall, but since I had already kept all of his security deposit, I didn't think I had any more leverage over him to press my case, and I was just willing to live with it.

This happened 8 months ago and I have now learned from my own Landlord that I will have to return the wall to its original state. I contacted my subletter to inform him that the responsibility should be his to pay for that, but he says that we've already settled our agreement.

I am thinking of taking him to small-claims court. But I wonder whether I have any case:

A. He does admit to painting the wall over
B. I will have to pay to get it stripped
C. We did already settle dammages/losses issues, but at the time I neither noticed the brick wall nor think that I would have to return it to the original raw state.
D. His security deposit doesn't cover all of the damages/loses, but I didn't realize before that I could sue for the remainder.

No matter that it seems fair that he should pay, do I have any ground in small-claims court?

[Cranky Tenant]

My guess is that any court is going to wonder why it took you eight months to notice the brick wall hadn't been restored to it's original condition.

Beyond that, whether or not you have a case probably depends on how much documentation you have. Photos of the wall before and after, plusa copy of the sub-lease stating these terms would be helpful. But if you already accepted the security deposit as full payment for damages you may be out of luck.

"Restoring" a brick wall can be expensive and time consuming. All of the chemicals involvolved will probably make your apartment uninhabitable for the duration.

<small>[ May 26, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Cranky Tenant ]</small>

[lucite]

Thanks for the reply.

Clarification: it didn't take me 8 months to realize about the wall - it took me a few days; but it was only 8 months after that I learned I would have to pay for it. I was pissed way before and emailed him about it; but then I was willing to live with it (thinking I didn't have any other recourse in any case since he had already surrendered the whole of his deposit).

[too trusting]

Since you're going to have to restore it anyway, get that done and save the receipt. When you try to sue in small claims court you have the work done and paid for alreay. They don't like you to have estimates to show what it would cost. They want to know you fixed it and what it cost you. Of course collecting the money is a huge problem.

[lucite]

Originally posted by too trusting:
They don't like you to have estimates to show what it would cost. They want to know you fixed it and what it cost you. Of course collecting the money is a huge problem.

Good point - although I also have a letter from building management saying I have to get that wall stripped.

But more generally, since you seem to know a bit about Small Claims Court, do you think they're likely to at least grant partial reparations, or are they likely to say: tough luck - you've already settled his return of the apt. even if you didn't notice the wall before.

Originally posted by FairSpectator:
chemical doesn't work. you need a special blaster for brick. you need to hire a contractor to do it.

Indeed, but do you think this is also true of this new stuff called "Strip Away" - you coat it on and then put a sheet over it and peal it off after some time - I've been told it's pretty good.

[too trusting]

It would depend on the judge and how you present your case. If they feel you're trying to make a buck they may award partial damages but if you appear to be sincere and honest you'll get more if not all. Make sure you have all your paperwork in order, pictures etc. If you can bring in the guy who told you the wall has to be restored and let him testify, check with the clerk in small claims because you might only need a statement from him on company letterhead, because its only small claims court. Cover all your bases and then some, be prepared for anything and be polite, respectful and professional in court. The judge will appreciate that and things should go your way.

What do you have to lose? I think its around $10 give or take a few bucks to file in small claims court. If the other party doesn't show up you will still need to prove your case to the arbitrator to win. Even if you get part of the money back its better than nothing.

<small>[ May 29, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: too trusting ]</small>