Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

section 6

Citation
section 6
Parent Document
250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2005-07-28

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text

1,104 chars
rights under section 1951.2 must estimate its damages for future lost rent. Under this scenario, if the deposit would be insufficient to cover the anticipated section 1951.2 damages, the landlord could retain it; on the other hand, if it appeared that the deposit would exceed the damages, the excess would have to be refunded. Here, for example, 250 indicates the rental market was falling when it received possession of the premises, and 250 asserts it was clear at that point that the damages for future lost rent would exceed the amount of the security deposit. Under section 1950.7, subdivision (f), a landlord who retains a security deposit in violation of the statute and does so in bad faith is liable for up to $200 in damages in addition to any actual damages the tenant sustains. Thus, under 250’s argument, if the landlord guessed wrong, and retained more of the security deposit than was required to cover future rent damages, the excess would eventually be refunded as actual damages to the tenant; if the landlord acted in bad faith, the tenant could be awarded additional damages of $200.