Applicant's Co-Signer Is Questioning Lease Provision

[Christopher Freeman]

Howdy all,

We use a modified version of the generic lease that comes with @Brandon Turner's [really awesome] Book on Managing Rental Properties. We had to make some changes to conform to New Hampshire state law, but other items we left in, including a provision in which the tenant agrees to have inspected the unit for mold and holds them liable for any mold damage that occurs during their tenancy.

In principle, I think this is a fairly reasonable provision; however, the applicant's co-signer questioned it, stating that:

"’I'm not used to seeing the provision that holds the tenant liable for mold damage.

[Applicant] is not trained to identify any preexisting mold or mold damage.

Do you have a certification that attests that there currently is no mold or mold damage?"

Not an unreasonable question in my opinion, and frankly I'm glad that both the applicant and the co-signer are reading so carefully. Most people just skim and ignore me during their orientation and then get mad when I hold them to their contract down the road.

I don't have a good answer, though. We don't have any sort of certification in place, and I wouldn't know where to obtain one. My interpretation of the provision is that it primarily relates to visible mold and mildew/tenant caused issues.

How would you respond in this situation? Is the provision reasonable to have in there in the first place? Does the requirement that the tenant return the unit in the same condition it was received already cover me here/is making the explicit observation about mold just confusing the issue or making the lease seem more draconian than it really is?