Apartment and Rental Properties - Smoking up a rental with cigarettes or candles
Doityourself.com community forum was created to provide answers to all questions related to home improvement and home repair. Doityourself community can help you find information about how-to topics on small fixes to large remodeling projects. With comprehensive how-to content and expertly moderated community forums DoItYourself.com makes it easy to tackle even the most complex home improvement projects.View Full Version : Smoking up a rental with cigarettes or candles
ecman51`
12-28-07, 06:58 PM
Short of this being written into a lease; if not, can anything be done to stop a tenant from smoke-staining up the walls and ceilings of a rental? Can you ask that person to stop?, and tell them that it is like criminal damage (as opposed to 'normal wear and tear') to property, because you will have to repaint all walls and ceilings after they leave, which can cost hundreds of dollars (perhaps 1 years worth of profit for the rental!), as opposed to simply touch-up painting (if the place was not smoked up).
mitch17
12-28-07, 08:07 PM
Our leases specifically prohibit open flames and list candles, cigarettes and oil lamps. Without such a clause, you have no power to stop them. They can, however, be charged for the cost of repainting the unit. Be sure to take lots of pictures of the soot on the walls just below the ceiling and often you'll be able to see every drywall screw or nail, especially behind where something had been hanging on the wall.
ecman51`
12-29-07, 11:16 AM
Thanks Mitch.
Is this pretty standard law everywhere, then, that you can charge them for painting in such circumstances even though nothing prohibiting them was on the lease? Is there any statute on this to look up?
This is very important and would mean a lot to every landlord out there. I wonder what the likelihood of that would be to being challenged by the tenent if you said to them that they have to pay $4-600 for repaint, and they say, "Oh, it doesn't look so bad to MEEE!" And you point out how you can't blend in touch up paint.
Would it help then to maybe get out a can and paint a spot and show them?
What if you give them an estimate and they say that THEY will paint it?
Is this pretty standard law everywhere, then, that you can charge them for painting in such circumstances even though nothing prohibiting them was on the lease? Is there any statute on this to look up?
This is very important and would mean a lot to every landlord out there. I wonder what the likelihood of that would be to being challenged by the tenent if you said to them that they have to pay $4-600 for repaint, and they say, "Oh, it doesn't look so bad to MEEE!" And you point out how you can't blend in touch up paint.
Would it help then to maybe get out a can and paint a spot and show them?
What if you give them an estimate and they say that THEY will paint it?
mitch17
12-29-07, 01:55 PM
You can charge them for painting if that's more than would be required for normal wear and tear, which is usually only some touch up work. Documenting the need for a total repaint is why I mentioned taking lots of pictures - to show the soot on the walls and ceilings.
We also never let the tenants paint, as we use the same paint in all the units and they would use something different.
As to statute, it would vary with each state, but the idea is that even though you did not prohibit them from smoking in the unit (which I assume you will from now on), they caused damage above and beyond what is considered normal and they can be charged for rectifying that. We go to court a lot and have never had any trouble on this issue getting our money back - we give them a copy of the bill from our painter and that's the dollar amount we get for it on the judgment.
We also never let the tenants paint, as we use the same paint in all the units and they would use something different.
As to statute, it would vary with each state, but the idea is that even though you did not prohibit them from smoking in the unit (which I assume you will from now on), they caused damage above and beyond what is considered normal and they can be charged for rectifying that. We go to court a lot and have never had any trouble on this issue getting our money back - we give them a copy of the bill from our painter and that's the dollar amount we get for it on the judgment.
ecman51`
12-30-07, 12:30 PM
Will pass your knowledge and experience onto the landlord I do work for.
BTW, he uses one color. He has in a few instances , allowed tenants to paint. When he does, he tells them they have to return the color back to the Shell or Dover (almost identical to each other) white paint color he uses, or they get charged.
Your court experience is enough evidence for me. Thanks.
BTW, he uses one color. He has in a few instances , allowed tenants to paint. When he does, he tells them they have to return the color back to the Shell or Dover (almost identical to each other) white paint color he uses, or they get charged.
Your court experience is enough evidence for me. Thanks.
twelvepole
01-05-08, 06:12 PM
One reason tenants should not be allowed to paint is that they get paint on door hardware, cabinetry, and floors. Explain up front and put into contract that the property is a non-smoking property. I recently stayed at a hotel that had a sign posted "$500 fine for smoking in room."
ecman51`
01-22-08, 07:55 PM
Thanks twelvepole.
Years back when we were stupid I gues, we allowed tenants to paint a trailer inside. It had faux wood beams crossing the ceiling. The paint ran down every one of these. It resembled topping on ice cream, like a sundae, it was that bad. I screamed at the tenants and said they have to get that paint off. I got them Goof-Off and demonstrated a small section, then said, "Here ya go!" I came back at a later date and they indeed did get off all the latex paint. Had to have been extremely labor intensive.
Good idea about the $500 sign. I wonder if that holds up in court. So many things these days can be side-stepped by clever lawyers. I DO know that where I lived in Texas, the county could not put up a large sign at the bad wooden bridge saying "Travel at your own risk....." No. The county had to replace it. It was not good enough for them to just warn people, I was told.
Years back when we were stupid I gues, we allowed tenants to paint a trailer inside. It had faux wood beams crossing the ceiling. The paint ran down every one of these. It resembled topping on ice cream, like a sundae, it was that bad. I screamed at the tenants and said they have to get that paint off. I got them Goof-Off and demonstrated a small section, then said, "Here ya go!" I came back at a later date and they indeed did get off all the latex paint. Had to have been extremely labor intensive.
Good idea about the $500 sign. I wonder if that holds up in court. So many things these days can be side-stepped by clever lawyers. I DO know that where I lived in Texas, the county could not put up a large sign at the bad wooden bridge saying "Travel at your own risk....." No. The county had to replace it. It was not good enough for them to just warn people, I was told.