California Lease with Security Deposit Forfeiture Clause - Enforceable?

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I had someone ask me this question, and I wanted to get the members' take on it.

A college student and two of his friends from Canada head into California for a Spring Break vacation. They rent a villa in La Quinta, CA for a week. The owner/LL has them sign a standard lease for the week, and the students are required to put down a $1,000 security deposit for the rental. One of the clauses in the lease says this:

9A. This is a NON SMOKING UNIT! No smoking of any kind is permitted on the property
either inside or outside at any time. Strict adherence is mandatory. Failure to comply will result
in immediate forfeiture of security/damage deposit in its entirety.

Needless to say, the students DID smoke on the rental property, but only outside (they apparently did not see that OUTSIDE smoking was also prohibited on the lease). The LL never even sent an itemized statement of deductions to the students within the 21-day timeframe (the LLs first mistake). The students then contacted HIM (LL) to ask about the return of the deposit, and LL specifically said that the property was in good shape, but since they had found some cigarette butts that the students had left behind, he referred them to the No Smoking clause in the lease and told them they had forfeited the full security deposit due to the lease violation.

Normally, I would say that if the tenants agreed to the forfeiture clause, then they knew the risk of violating it and accepted the consequences. However, it is my understanding that under CA Civil Code 1905.5, the LL can only deduct actual damages from the security deposit.

My question is this. Is such a clause that permits forfeiture of the security deposit without having any actual damages considered enforceable?

 

[FarmerJ]

Sandy , personally I wonder too about how CA courts would have ruled if it went to court if its regular rental but its not regular residential rental so this is where it was even more important for them to understand the rules ( personally unless the LL has video of them smoking outside I dont see how the LL would be able to prove that these vacationers did this unless the property was so gated that there is no way for anyone else but the vacationer or persons vacationer let in as visitors to have gotten in and smoked even on the grounds) EG : I figure if this property is set up in such a way where anyone from the public could wander onto it , say like a beach front and decide to light up and leave behind evidence of the visit that with out video proof or eyewitness a LL would have a hard time proving the claim . Last I too would wonder if the CA small claims courts would really permit even in a vacation rental for the LL to keep that much since the so called financial damage from cleaning up butts could not have reasonably exceeded the amount of deposit so even if the vacationers were just locals its a total crap shoot as to how the court might rule if the amount held was challenged say under unjust enrichment. My suggestion is that if these vacationers are that serious about disputing the amount held that exploring how any CA precedents related to unjust enrichment might apply because unless they are willing to lie in court that they smoked outside exploring unjust enrichment might be the only option they have. ( Sandy Id be interested in knowing what they find and if they decide to follow thru and challenge what was held)

 

[sandyclaus]

Just BUMPING my post to see if there are any other replies on this.