Clarifying Wear and Tear vs. Tenant Responsibility for Appliance Repairs in CA

[Ramki D.]

Hello fellow landlords,

I hope you're all doing well. I wanted to open up a discussion about an issue I've encountered recently in my California rental property (7 yrs old home), and I'm sure many of you have faced similar situations.

In my lease agreement, I have specified that any repair not exceeding $200 should be the tenant's responsibility. However, my current tenant claims that the garage door repair should be considered "wear and tear" and, therefore, my responsibility as the landlord.

I believe there's a distinction between normal wear and tear and tenant responsibility. In my view, wear and tear generally applies to items that naturally deteriorate over time with regular use, such as paint fading or carpet wearing down. However, appliances like fridges, washers/dryers, light bulbs, toilets, and bath tubs are subject to regular maintenance and can require repairs due to usage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. How do you differentiate between wear and tear and tenant responsibility when it comes to appliance repairs? Are there specific guidelines or practices you follow in your rental agreements, especially regarding the $200 limit for tenant responsibilities?

Let's share our insights to ensure fairness and clarity in our rental agreements and avoid any potential disputes with our tenants.

Thanks for your input!

[Bruce Woodruff]

I would get more specific in your lease contract. State that light bulbs are not the LLs responsibility, as well as other items that are clearly destined to wear out on a regular basis...

This seems to be a common sense issue (to me). But some tenants will take advantage of unclear issues...