Background on Carpet Replacement Laws in California
Maintenance is one of a landlord’s biggest responsibilities. In addition to timely addressing plumbing leaks, electrical problems and other issues, California landlords must also replace carpet that is ready for replacement. Unlike some states where there is no express law regarding the maintenance and repair of carpet, California has two laws – just cause eviction and habitability – that require maintenance and possibly replacement of carpet.
Knowing what is required can save tenants and landlords thousands of dollars in carpet replacement costs. Most importantly , tenants sometimes assume they have to replace the carpet themselves and thus vacate the rental. Other times tenants will withhold rent until the carpet is replaced. In both cases, having an attorney properly advise the tenant not to do these things can save thousands of dollars, as well as court time to evict. Avoiding the costs of replacement also saves landlord money by increasing the rental value of the unit. Understanding California rental carpet replacement laws is not just about whether the carpet is replaced, but also about making sure the parties do not spend money unnecessarily.
When Are Landlords Required to Replace Carpets?
California law does not create a hard and fast rule on when landlords must replace old carpet in their rental units. Instead, most cases hold that such a replacement is required only as soon as reasonably necessary due to normal wear and tear. Because of the subjective nature of what constitutes a reasonable timeline for such replacement, disputes regarding carpet replacement more often than not come up in the context of whether a landlord was justified in keeping (or charging for new) carpets after tenant’s lease was over. If a tenant feels that the landlord wasn’t timely with replacement, the tenant has potential grounds for withholding rent until the old carpet is replaced (at which time the rent can be released in full). Tenants also have grounds for withholding of rent if the landlord refuses to replace carpet with significant stains or other damage without giving a reasonable time to clean or replace.
Basic requirements of California Civil Code section 1941.2 regarding flooring and carpeting are as follows: (1) flooring in rental units must be clean, noxious-odor-free, and free from marring or restriction of movement; (2) coverings made of wood, cork, or other hard substances must have non-wearing floor liners that are free from holes, cracks, or tears that prevent tennants from having free use of the premises; and (3) carpeting must be in place and free from rips, tears, stains and other non-normal wear and tear.
In Miller v. Sloughman (1975), the court held that carpeting and linoleum has a useful life of five years for purposes of normal wear and tear, and once that period has elapsed, the landlord is required to change the flooring. In a later case, the court upheld the judgment for tenants who withheld rent based on landlord’s refusal to replace old carpet that were six years old and had not been properly cared for despite tenants’ repeated requests.
While it is understandable that tenants may find some time period less than 5 years unreasonable, a court may find otherwise. In Strong v. Benfanti (1987), the court rejected tenants’ claim that carpet approximately four years old but nonetheless worn was in need of replacement due to normal wear and tear.
Tenant Rights to Carpet Replacement in California Rentals
The California Department of Consumer Affairs underlines a tenant’s rights regarding carpet replacement. The law requires landlords to replace a carpet "within a reasonable period before the beginning of the rental agreement" if the carpet is "in poor condition with holes or tears" and if the landlord has "actual knowledge of the poor condition of the carpet."
The law does not explicitly state what is a "reasonable period," but gives examples involving a variety of common scenarios. For example, if the landlord has agreed to move a carpet-cleaning service free of charge, or if the tenant and landlord have agreed to split the cost of replacing carpeting, the landlord may have a "reasonable period" to defer replacement of the carpet.
If the tenant believes the carpet is in poor condition and has given the landlord a reasonable time to replace the carpeting (or if the landlord has actual knowledge of the condition of the carpet) and replacement has not occurred, the tenant may enforce his/her rights to a habitable dwelling by providing the landlord with a written notice of the defective condition and the necessity to repair or replace it with a specified period of time thereafter. A failure to repair or replace the carpeting within the required period may (among other remedies) permit the tenant to withhold rent until the carpet has been repaired or replaced.
Tenants who believe their rights under the law are not being upheld may utilize the California Department of Consumer Affair’s toll free renter tenant hotline or or apply the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s online complaint process.
The Life of a Carpet and the Associated Costs
When courts consider the expected useable life of carpet to determine whether a tenant is responsible for carpet replacement, they generally focus on the type, color, and density of the carpet and whether it has been properly cared for by the tenant. The key issue is whether the carpet in question has reached the end of its useful life.
What is the useful life of carpet? The California Department of Consumer Affairs lists carpet as having an average useful life of five years. (See Tenant Rights: A Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and Responsibilities, pg 33). While the average period is five years, the fair wear and use period for carpet can vary based on exact carpet composition and use. Certain types of carpet will not hold up to high traffic, pets, or children. Rental property owners expect normal wear and tear on the carpet. However, excessive wear and tear that cannot be expected on similar properties may make the tenant responsible for replacing the carpet.
Common sense also informs reasonable expectations for carpet replacement in rental property. A carpet’s average lifespan is when a typical tenant would expect to replace the carpet. A tenant who lives in a rental property for six years and has never cleaned the carpet, had kids who drew on the carpet, and allowed animals to urinate on the carpet will not be able to complain when replacing the carpet in year seven is costly. A tenant who cleans the carpet and treats the property well should be compensated for some of the expenses associated with replacing the carpet.
Courts and laypeople alike would consider the expected lifespan of carpet to be five years. Assuming this five-year life, would a landlord/owner expect to replace the carpet at the expiration of the lease term? Certainly not. The landlord would expect to get one more year of use out of the carpet. When the average carpet carpet’s lifespan is renewed every six years, a landlord can expect to replace the carpet every six years. Of course, the actual timeframe may even end up being a little longer than that.
Assuming a carpet cost $1.85/sf to install (including padding and labor), 1,500 square feet of carpet would cost $2,775 to install. While the exact amount the landlord/owner expended to install the carpet is relevant to determining the rental value, the current replacement cost of the carpet is irrelevant. Ultimately, the landlord’s reasonable expectations for carpet replacement may be one factor in measuring damages. If the landlord is using the carpet beyond the average expected lifespan, then the tenant is entitled to a pro rata share of the usable life remaining in the carpet as of the time that the parties begin their new landlord/tenant relationship.
Common Controversies and Their Solutions
The most common disputes between landlords and tenants over California rental carpet replacement occur around three issues: who should pay for tear and wear, whether the replacement is due to a tenant’s pet or smoking, and when the carpeting was actually installed.
The landlord will normally want the tenant to foot the bill for replacement due to normal wear and tear; however, the courts have routinely held that the tenant is not required to upgrade the space in any way. Cases are mixed on this issue; perhaps the key is whether the landlord reserved rent escalations for renovation or upgrades. The landlord must make the tenant whole for renovations that shareholders enjoy, and in such case costs can be passed on to tenants through rent increases in a fair and reasonable way.
The question of whether the tenant is responsible for carpet replacement due to a pet or smoking habits has split the courts, with some finding for the tenant and others for the landlord . In such a case, the first course of action is to look for any language in the lease regarding responsibility for damages whereby tenant could be found liable for a pet or smoking.
The question of when the carpeting was actually installed is difficult because a landlord has no liability for wear and tear where the carpeting is not a material item. The statute is couched in terms of return of the premises with "furnishings… in good condition," where the trend of the law is that wear and tear occurs to elements which are material. Where the carpeting was not discussed in the lease, and no requirement exists for carpeting, the courts have held that the statutory provision for no wear should apply. However, when a material item is leased, it appears that in the circumstance that an item is leased, a jury will be left to weigh the evidence and determine whether replacement of carpeting is required for a material item or what portion of liability the tenant is liable for based on the age of the carpeting.
Legal Assistance and Resources for Tenants and Landlords
In California, there are several legal advocacy groups and state websites that offer a wealth of information for both tenants and landlords to understand their rights and responsibilities under the law for carpet replacement and other elements of maintaining a rental property:
The Department of Consumer Affairs provides an in-depth guide to understanding the rights of California tenants. It covers all topics important to landlords and tenants including security deposits and landlords’ responsibilities for keeping up the premises, which includes replacing carpet. The Department of Fair Employment & Housing also provides a comprehensive guide to California tenants’ rights. This guide includes information about discrimination, housing accessibility, retaliation, and the right to repair (which would include replacing carpet). The California Apartment Association has articles on what California law states regarding carpet replacement and making property owners responsible for carpet care. Articles in the CAA’s Tenant Resources Center cover all aspects of a tenant’s rights in the state of California.
For tenants, it is important to understand the California carpet laws that apply. If your carpet is soiled from foot traffic and pet stains, but is otherwise in good condition, you may not be entitled to new carpet. However, if your carpet or rugs are damaged, burned from cigarette stains, or damaged in some other way, carpet replacement according to the California carpet replacement laws may be required. Landlords always have the right to inspect a tenant’s apartment prior to eviction. You may have grounds for small claims court if your carpets have been stained and your landlord is refusing to replace the flooring as he or she is required to per California carpet replacement laws. To learn more about your rights, contact an experienced attorney in your area.
Case Analyses: Examples from Real Cases
Renters of single-family homes and apartment units in California have had to challenge landlords for replacement or cleaning of carpets within their unit for many years. In most cases, we renters have either been ignored and "asked" to shampoo the carpets ourselves or told our carpets were perfectly fine. Here are some examples where renters went to court to fight back. In Marisol vs. A & P, the California Court of Appeals upheld the tenant’s right for her carpeted unit to maintain a normal life, without exposing her children to the dangers of dirty and worn carpet. The rental carpet replacement law was applied here along with the law holding that landlords are charged with an implied warranty of habitability. In other words, the tenant must be secure from defects in the premises whether they are economic or physical. The court held that the carpet must meet these standards or, if necessary, be replaced. Even worse than the filthy floors was a small Los Angeles apartment rental where the tenant’s shower was, literally, picture a scene from the movie "The Shining , " black mold. In Wong v. Super. Ct. the tenant sued her landlord for replacement and cleaning of the carpet and removal of mold growing inside her walls. She was awarded $1,500. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling and stated, "the consumer expectation test is an objective test that does not require an inquiry into the subjective intent of defendant when it sold the product…[F]ailure to comply with governing statutes establishes a prima facie showing of defect under that statute." Significant is the fact that the Court inferred that the tenant’s health was at risk (in a small space, obviously) and that the rental carpet replacement law is a clear violation of the consumer protection laws. A tenant who was injured by both a broken glass door and a fall on a dirty, stained carpet may have prevented replacement of his injury-causing foe in Rossen v. Bank of America. The Court of Appeals held authorized the tenant to receive compensation for the lack of replacement. "Plaintiff was not required to prove that he would have rented the apartment if the carpeting had been properly maintained, and it is sufficient that the failure to do so was a substantial factor in his decision to rent elsewhere…."