California Landlord wants $500 from our deposit for this?!

[Ay Zed]

1. landlord did not call this discolored ring out during initial inspection, even though it was there and our belongings were not in the way, he did not leave us a list to be fixed

2. after we moved out, he did a final inspection, and wants to take $500 from our deposit for this ring. so we aren't given a chance as required by law to fix this ourselves

Landlords & realtors, what do y'all think? 

(btw, he also called out a couple other damages, but fortunately, I had move-in photos with dates to prove that those damages were there before we moved in) 

[Nathan Gesner]

Quote from @Ay Zed:

California Civil Code 1950.5 includes the following:

(2) Based on the inspection, the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleanings that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions from the security the landlord intends to make pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). This statement shall also include the texts of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b). The statement shall be given to the tenant, if the tenant is present for the inspection, or shall be left inside the premises.

(3) The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the initial inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies, in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of the parties under the rental agreement, in order to avoid deductions from the security.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for deductions itemized in the statement provided for in paragraph (2) that were not cured by the tenant so long as the deductions are for damages authorized by this section.

(5) Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a landlord from using the security for any purpose specified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b) that occurs between completion of the initial inspection and termination of the tenancy or was not identified during the initial inspection due to the presence of a tenant’s possessions.

Emphasis is mine. The Landlord could argue the damage was not visible at the time of the pre-inspection, or that the damage occurred after the pre-inspection. You would have to prove otherwise.

You're spending a lot of time and energy on this. Why not just call the Landlord and try to negotiate a settlement? Show your pictures to a couple professionals and ask what they would charge to repair. If it's cheaper than $500 then you have some ammunition to negotiate with the Landlord. Or just save yourself the trouble and offer to split the difference and accept a $250 deduction and call it even.

We can give you advice but this will ultimately come down to you and the Landlord negotiating something.