Should the tenant or landlord pay for this

DrTravel

Active member
I lived in my house for 10 years and then rented it out. I have a water pond/waterfall feature in my back yard - there is a small pond with a pump in it that fuels the waterfall. I sporadically used it over the years with no issues. A month after the tenant moved in, it broke. I called out my installer who replaced the pump for about $500. He said it "probably broke" because the tenant turned it on without having water in the pond to pump.

Anyhow, move forward 4 years. The pump broke again - even though it was used sporadically. I'm not 100% sure I want to replace it again. Seems the tenant is doing something they shouldn't do. My questions - do you think this is normal "wear and tear" that I should fix or should the tenant do it? And additionally, is an operating waterfall something that I have to provide?

Inputs welcome.
 
You should fix it. Anything that goes wrong you should fix unless it is something very negligent your tenant does. This shit comes with the landlord territory.
 
If you're happy with your tenant, I would fix it.

But I don't think you need to fix it. I think I read CA landlord guidelines require you to fix things that meaningfully impact the habitability of the dwelling. I don't think this would qualify under those guidelines as something you have to fix.
 
Next time you renew your lease agreement, you can also specify some items which are provided as is, which you are not obligated to maintain or repair. but you can't list things which impact habitability like a toilet or stove
 
I'm on the other side of this.

He should speak to the tenant about how much it cost to repair and that it seems that it is broken due to improper usage by them.

And then tell them that unless they have a compelling reason to fix it, to just leave it.

It's a water feature, it's not a necessary item to make the property livable.
 
Our landscaper told us to expect 4-5 years max out of the pump.

Our old pump lasted for way longer than that but apparently that was well beyond it's life expectancy.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I'm on the other side of this.

He should speak to the tenant about how much it cost to repair and that it seems that it is broken due to improper usage by them.

And then tell them that unless they have a compelling reason to fix it, to just leave it.

It's a water feature, it's not a necessary item to make the property livable.

I am with you on this. Maintenance such as cutting the grass and trimming the trees should be done and at owner expense. Water feature can be not operating and it should not affect their living situations.
 
Due to current water usage restrictions, you might want to check with the city to see if the water feature should be "dry".
 
In a civil case you'd have to argue that it was due to the tenant's negligence.  The standard is that there was more than 50% chance that the tenant caused it to happen.  Courts seem to be tenant biased.  I don't think you have to fix it.  I think the landlord just has to keep the building in a habitable condition. 
 
collected said:
In a civil case you'd have to argue that it was due to the tenant's negligence.  The standard is that there was more than 50% chance that the tenant caused it to happen.  Courts seem to be tenant biased.  I don't think you have to fix it.  I think the landlord just has to keep the building in a habitable condition.

Yes you do not have to fix it.  A water feature is not required to make the home habitable nor was it likely a major feature that enticed people to rent from you.

However the question on this thread was should the tenant or the landlord pay for this.  If that is the question you are asking, then you, the landlord, will be on the hook for it. 

 
Normal wear and tear is such a hard concept. I understand as the landlord, it feels like you should not have the responsibility of paying, but without enough evidence I'd assume it would still be your responsibility.

 
Back
Top