.neFileBlock {
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
padding-bottom: 5px;
padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
font-size: 85%;
}
Landlords and tenants are aware of the phrase “normal wear and tear.” Tenants do not have to pay for broken or damaged items when the tenant’s use does not create anything more than normal wear and tear to the property.
What is normal wear and tear, and how is that different from other, excessive damage?
Simply living somewhere means certain items, such as carpet, will wear, and some items, such as door handles or latches, can break from normal use. Thus, in the context of houses and apartments, most common-sense people can tell the difference between wear and tear and excessive damage, as long as everyone knows the move-in condition and the move-out condition.
Damage to property that might be considered excessive in some situations can be considered normal wear and tear in other situations. For example, a ripped or permanently stained carpet might be considered only normal wear and tear if the carpet was already threadbare when the tenant moved in. Conversely, allowing pets in a pet-free rental property can make the property permanently unable to be completely cleaned of pet allergens. That situation could be considered more than normal wear and tear.
For farm buildings, the line between normal wear and tear and excessive damage is almost impossible to define legally. Animals are hard on even the newest and sturdiest buildings. In these situations, ultimately, a jury is usually charged to try to figure out whether damage is excessive.
If excessive damage is found, the amount the landlord can recover from the tenant is usually measured by how much the damage decreased the value of the property.
However, most of my landlord clients never even get a chance to argue that a property was excessively damaged. Unfortunately, landlords usually want to move in paying tenants as soon as possible. As a result, landlords do not always fully document the condition of property before tenants take possession.
The issue of poor documentation of property condition at the beginning of a lease seems to be most problematic for those who rent out farmland. For example, several years ago, a certain landlord did not measure soil nutrient levels on his 500-acre farm when a new tenant took possession. That tenancy ended last year, and the landlord hired me shortly thereafter.
Soil tests taken a few months ago indicate soil nutrient levels that are much lower than many northwest Ohio agronomy professionals had ever seen. Without comparable soil analyses from the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord is poorly positioned to conclusively prove that the tenant abused the farm, despite the fact that the condition of the farm is now so deplorably bad.
The condition of property (residential or commercial/agricultural) always changes while a tenant has possession. Photographs of all rooms of apartments and houses upon move-in can help the landlord and tenant separate responsibilities for any damages upon move-out. Soil testing of farmland upon the beginning of a lease similarly avoids uncertainty and risk for the landlord and the tenant.
