My girlfriend recently moved out of her apartment recently so we could get one together. Upon finding our current place, we contacted her landlord at the time (around mid-March) to advise them we were moving out. We asked what they needed of us, and asked if we could set up a date of 4/15 and have the rent prorated for that month. The building, a fourplex, was being sold at the time though, so they asked us to stay longer a couple different times. We declined their offers to stay longer, so the landlord agreed to go ahead and let us move out on 4/15. My girlfriend had already paid for all of April's rent at this point, so the landlord stated he would go ahead and refund it once we moved out. They never asked us for formal written notice, and apparently accepted the verbal notice we gave. We moved out as we asked for on 4/15, and left the keys there. The landlord was actually there that day, checking on one of the other apartments. He had been in ours, and commented that it looked good and not much was going to be needed to get it ready for a new tenant. There were no physical damages, just normal wear and tear, and the apartment was cleaned thoroughly by my girlfriend and myself. The building was sold, and apparently the new owner took over the final day we were tenants, 4/15. The old landlord advised us that he had forwarded the deposit on to the new landlord, and gave us his phone # so we could provide a forwarding address for the deposit. On 5/25, we received notice from the new landlord stating that we hadn't provided 30 day written notice, and per the terms of our lease agreement, he was unable to refund the $550 deposit because of this. The specific wording in the lease that he pointed out was this: "Tenant agrees to give written notice of intention to vacate to the landlord. Should tenant vacate other than on the last day of the month, the rent will not be prorated to daily occupancy. At the beginning of said 30 days notice, tenants will allow 'FOR RENT' or 'FOR SALE' signs to be erected and tenant is to cooperate with showings to prospective tenants or purchasers. Failure to cooperate will cause forfeiture of deposit."
My first question is whether or not this is actually what the clause states. From what I can tell, it seems more to state that failure to cooperate in showings of the apartment would cause forfeiture of deposit, not the matter of failure to give 30 day WRITTEN notice. Plus, we cleared the move with the people who were our landlords the entire time we were there, and apparently 30 day verbal notice was good enough for them since they never asked for a written notice. Also, we DID cooperate in showings as the old landlords brought over a potential tenant at one point as well as the inspectors for the man who eventually purchased the building. We did not interfere, and allowed them into the apartment. From what I can tell, the new landlord is mostly upset due to the fact that he says he was never informed of our intent to vacate, saying that he wasn't told until 4/19.
Along those lines, the letter he sent us was dated 5/18, which would be within the 30 day timeframe he has to notify us of the status of our deposit. However, the postmark on the envelope says 5/23, which shows he didn't actually send it to us within the 30 days from the time he says he was told of our departure. The lease never extends the 30 day timeframe required by law.
I've been doing some rsearch as well, and if I'm understanding CO law in this situation, the whole clause the new landlord is using as reason to withhold the deposit may not even be legal. I've found the following clause in the CO Landlord-Tenant laws: "Any provision, whether oral or written, in or pertaining to a rental agreement whereby any provision of this section for the benefit of a tenant or members of his household is waived shall be deemed to be against public policy and shall be void." If I'm understanding this clause right, then it's basically stating that any lease requiring the tenant to waive any of their rights protected by the laws (i.e. security deposit only being used for physical damage/cleaning) is voided. I've checked the lease we have with our current landlord, thinking that if this clause is allowed, it would be something standard in all agreements, and it is nowhere to be found. The lease agreement we've signed now is with a large realty company, as opposed to a private party so I'm inclined to believe that my current landlord is more familiar with what is/isn't allowed by law.
If anyone who has gone through anything familiar or any lawyers who know CO landlord-tenant laws could reply, I would greatly appreciate it. I know that if I'm correct and he's not legally withholding the deposit, then he needs to return it immediately or I can sue him for 3 times the original deposit amount.
My first question is whether or not this is actually what the clause states. From what I can tell, it seems more to state that failure to cooperate in showings of the apartment would cause forfeiture of deposit, not the matter of failure to give 30 day WRITTEN notice. Plus, we cleared the move with the people who were our landlords the entire time we were there, and apparently 30 day verbal notice was good enough for them since they never asked for a written notice. Also, we DID cooperate in showings as the old landlords brought over a potential tenant at one point as well as the inspectors for the man who eventually purchased the building. We did not interfere, and allowed them into the apartment. From what I can tell, the new landlord is mostly upset due to the fact that he says he was never informed of our intent to vacate, saying that he wasn't told until 4/19.
Along those lines, the letter he sent us was dated 5/18, which would be within the 30 day timeframe he has to notify us of the status of our deposit. However, the postmark on the envelope says 5/23, which shows he didn't actually send it to us within the 30 days from the time he says he was told of our departure. The lease never extends the 30 day timeframe required by law.
I've been doing some rsearch as well, and if I'm understanding CO law in this situation, the whole clause the new landlord is using as reason to withhold the deposit may not even be legal. I've found the following clause in the CO Landlord-Tenant laws: "Any provision, whether oral or written, in or pertaining to a rental agreement whereby any provision of this section for the benefit of a tenant or members of his household is waived shall be deemed to be against public policy and shall be void." If I'm understanding this clause right, then it's basically stating that any lease requiring the tenant to waive any of their rights protected by the laws (i.e. security deposit only being used for physical damage/cleaning) is voided. I've checked the lease we have with our current landlord, thinking that if this clause is allowed, it would be something standard in all agreements, and it is nowhere to be found. The lease agreement we've signed now is with a large realty company, as opposed to a private party so I'm inclined to believe that my current landlord is more familiar with what is/isn't allowed by law.
If anyone who has gone through anything familiar or any lawyers who know CO landlord-tenant laws could reply, I would greatly appreciate it. I know that if I'm correct and he's not legally withholding the deposit, then he needs to return it immediately or I can sue him for 3 times the original deposit amount.
