Security Deposits and 3-day right of recission
1. Do security deposits in CA need to be in an interest-bearing account? 2. If so, can I sue my landlord for not doing that? 3. For how much can I sue? 4. Do I have a three-day right-of-recission after signing a renewal rental lease? 5. If so, does it need to be in writing? 6. Is a lease ”valid” if one of the terms needs to be amended? 7.If not,is the validity determined starting from the amendment date or, once amended, back to the date of the original signing?
Re: Security Deposits and 3-day right of recission
1. No. 2. N/A 3. 0 4. No 5. N/A 6. Yes 7. N/A. I get the feeling the question you are really trying to ask is how do you get out of a lease agreement. The answer is contained on my web page at members.tripod.com/familylawca/
Robert Mccoy
Law Office Of Robert McCoy
204 N. San Antonio Ave.
Ontario, CA 91762
Re: Security Deposits and 3-day right of recission
Taking your questions in order:
1. No, security deposits do not have to be in interest-bearing accounts nor are landlords required to pay interest on them EXCEPT is some communities where such a requirement is written into the rent-control ordinance.
2. If you live in a rent control town, check with the rent control board. The remedy is likely to be filing a complaint with the board rather than filing a lawsuit.
3. Depends on the ordinance, if any.
4. No.
5. A lease for more than one year must be in writing in order to avoid the defenses provided by the statute of frauds and possibly a defense of total invalidity. Otherwise, leases and all clauses thereof should be in writing as a matter of good business, but a writing is not required; oral leases for a year or less are enforceable to the extent they can be proven by credible testimony and other evidence.
6. Very likely. Many contracts have missing terms or contain errors and omissions. They are enforced, with the judge supplying the missing term or correcting the error. Certain drafting errors or omissions might be fatal to a contract or lease, but modern judicial practice is to enforce the intent of the parties at the time of contracting if this can be ascertained from the documents and facts available. However, the court might provide a remedy other than enforcement of the contract if it is too error-riddled; instead, she might order restitution of the deposit, partial damages or something else.
7. A court would try to carry out the actual, original intent of the parties as closely as that intent can be determined from the evidence. The modern practice is not to look for ‘subjective intent’ (what someone’s personal expectation was) as what a rational outsider would construe those contract terms to mean. Thus, contract terms are construed objectively, not subjectively.
Bryan Whipple
Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law
P O Box 318
Tomales, CA 94971-0318