take pictures, just because you moved out and the landlord wants to have a newly painted place is not cause for the landlord to charge you to re-paint, now if the landlord has to patch walls from holes then sure they can charge to re-paint to cover the patches
takes allot of pictures when you move out, give the place a good cleaning, what is the reason to paint if the walls are not damaged
2007-07-25 03:02:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by goz1111 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, though it is not common without damage and would depend on how the lease agreement reads. Apartments are almost always repainted before being rented out again. Property management usually eats the cost of doing so.
A few years ago we moved to our house from an apartment. In our son's apartment bedroom we had painted some pictures on the wall. We were charged the cost of the extra paint used to cover those pictures. But I have never been charged beyond that.
2007-07-25 03:01:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by todd s 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
When the tenant moves out, the landlord CAN keep all or part of the security deposit for:
· Repairing damage caused by the tenant, the tenant's guests, or the the tenant's visitors;
· Unpaid rent;
· Repairs, cleaning, and painting to the apartment that were specified in the lease as being the tenant's financial responsibility.
2007-07-28 19:39:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Robin L 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
only if the re-paint was necessary because of something you did, not if its just normal wear and tear. If you damaged the paint, or smoked in an apartment that was non-smoking, they can charge you for repairs, but normal maintenance such as painting every few years just to give the place a fresh look is not your responsibility. Your rent pays for the fact that there will be normal wear and tear. I'd threaten to get a lawyer if they say they are going to keep your security deposit. you may even want to call a lawyer and get a free consultation to get their opinion.
2007-07-25 02:57:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Typically, we as landlords pay for general painting as long as it didn't need to be painted because of damage caused by the tenant. The security deposit is used for any damages caused by the tenant after they have left.
It is returned to the tenant if there were no damages or we deduct the cost for damages or clean up.
I guess it would depend on the agreement between the landlord and tenant.
2007-07-25 03:09:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jane 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the landlord can charge you for repainting, if anything other than 'normal wear and tear' occurred with the paint.
'Normal wear and tear' doesn't cover much other than fading from locations in which you had wall hangings. Corner chips, dirt, scratches, and nail holes are not considered under this definition.
If you want to minimize your deduction, ask the landlord if YOU can do the repainting, with your offer to assume the cost of the paint.
2007-07-25 03:01:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by acermill 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
In most states, normal "wear and tear" painting is the responsibility of the landlord and can not be taken out of the security deposit.
However, if you did anything like paint the walls a different color from the original, have exessive stains/nail holes/pin holes, etc. then he/she can argue that those are above and beyond normal wear and tear.
2007-07-25 02:57:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by wyntre_2000 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Did you paint them after you moved in? If so then yes they can deduct it. Talk to your landlord and find out before you do anything.
2007-07-25 05:45:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by sassssy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes they can, when you have an apartment, you are RENTING, you don't own that property. He has to now rent it to someone else, who needs to see the apartment as a blank pallet for them to live in. So unless you guys buy primer and paint and get the walls white again before you leave, then he will have to do that, and that money will come from your deposit.
2007-07-25 02:55:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by Where is My Mind? 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
If it is normal wear and tear, the landlord is responsible although you might have a tough time proving it.
2007-07-25 02:56:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by WJVV 4
·
1⤊
1⤋