Landlords: How do y'all handle this? Two dents. It's certainly not normal wear & tear and the unit still functions. I can't see charging for 2 new doors, but it has certainly greatly reduced the look and value.

Thank you for your reply. The cost to replace would be $700+. What is fair? Half?

We are stuck with the damage & the fridge was new when they moved in.

How long did you have the fridge? How long did you expect it to last?

It honestly depends if you think they are going to fight you on the repair in court. Legally speaking, you need to replace the doors and charge them the repair cost.

If you're going to try to replace the fridge by swapping it in a lower end unit or by swapping it with a fridge you own, then I would negotiate down to half… but only if you don't think it'll go to court over withholding deposit issues.

As much as I want to tell you to be gracious, and lenient, I think it's best to repair it and deduct the repair expense from the tenant's security deposit. Fridge was not like that when they moved in. That is not a normal wear & tear item. Yes, stuff happens, and that's ok, that's why there is a deposit on file - not a personal attack on tenant for something happening.

Cost of an <x> years refrigerator is great condition less cost of an <x> year's refrigerator with cosmetic damage = what you should charge.

Both of those numbers you should be able to get with a bit of research. Quick google search suggests dented appliance usually costs 15% of value. So take the current value of the refrigerator, multiply by 15% and there you go. If the unit is still functional, it's taking the piss to charge for the full amount of the repair. The refrigerator still has value and you'd never recover a $700 repair on a refrigerator that's value has depreciated since bought new if you then went and sold it.

The value you need to propose the tenants covering is the spread between the 2 comparable market values. I'd venture even half the repair is too high for this one

Brand new fridge when they moved in December 21.

edit: All appliances were new when we purchased the house. They are the only tenants. Discovered when they moved out. They did point out a giant scratch in the new flooring in a bedroom - but not the dents. They also somehow broke 2 kitchen drawers and killed a huge swath of St. Augustine in the yard by putting in a giant above ground pool that we did not OK. They are easily over their deposit if we charge for everything.

edit: Price for a similar fridge at Lowes is $2,999.00 - on sale right now for $1,949.

Agree - we are always quick to repair/replace and all of our properties are nice, up to date & clean. Tenants tend to appreciate it & keep it that way.

Assuming this fridge is in the kitchen, how in the world does it end up with those two dents? Makes me wonder what other damage these tenants have done to your property.

Never ceases to amaze me how some folks will treat others property - be it a rental house, vacation unit, hotel room, etc. As if paying rent for the usage of the property gives them full license to leave it in any condition they choose.

I wouldn't lean towards leniency here. Fixing the fridge, fixing the floor, fixing the broken drawers and replacing the sod is going too be expensive!!

They beat the crap out of your property. Fix it properly and refund any excess deposit if there is anything left when you're done.

I have destructive kids. This took a monumental F up to damage this badly. I wouldn't be happy either.

Yeah, that is also the type of damage your eye goes right to when entering a kitchen. I'd go after what it takes to fix

Thanks for the replies & different ways to think about it. It's very disappointing but hard to charge $700+ for replacement. We do have the move in sheet where the wife marked the fridge good, so I know we are within our rights, but this is a first for us - actual damage. Normally we're just charging for stove pans & light bulbs.

Still weighing what to do.

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

Absolute said:

---

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

---

The rental car company is highly likely settling out with your insurance company on comparable market value of the car pre and post damage. This is their keep whole calculation and no different than what I'm suggesting.

Do the math. $3k refrigerator. Factor in 10-15% for 18 months of depreciation then 15% for a dented appliance (number I got from the internet… do your own research). You say 'small percentage' but it's around $400. From a market value perspective, this is closest to how much the value of your asset has been harmed by the damage. This is the closest thing to being kept whole.

There has to be a quantitative base for this stuff. I suppose an invoice to replace the door is a way to do that, but most people even in their own homes are more likely to live with cosmetic damages and are only replacing a door if not doing so makes the refrigerator dysfunctional.

Charging the full repair cost at least in my opinion does indeed keep you whole… but at an unnecessary monetary cost to the tenant which isn't fair and an unnecessary hassle to the landlord… which also isn't fair. Other words, nobody is going to receive $700 worth of utility if this repair is done. But… you are owed compensation for how the market value of your asset was actually harmed. It's somewhat easy to strip out the current cost base of a refrigerator (vs lawn or broken drawers) so go get the answer that's the most efficient and fairest for both parties… that answer is going to be market value considerations.

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

---

The rental car company is highly likely settling out with your insurance company on comparable market value of the car pre and post damage. This is their keep whole calculation and no different than what I'm suggesting.

Do the math. $3k refrigerator. Factor in 10-15% for 18 months of depreciation then 15% for a dented appliance (number I got from the internet… do your own research). You say 'small percentage' but it's around $400. From a market value perspective, this is closest to how much the value of your asset has been harmed by the damage. This is the closest thing to being kept whole.

There has to be a quantitative base for this stuff. I suppose an invoice to replace the door is a way to do that, but most people even in their own homes are more likely to live with cosmetic damages and are only replacing a door if not doing so makes the refrigerator dysfunctional.

Charging the full repair cost at least in my opinion does indeed keep you whole… but at an unnecessary monetary cost to the tenant which isn't fair and an unnecessary hassle to the landlord… which also isn't fair. Other words, nobody is going to receive $700 worth of utility if this repair is done. But… you are owed compensation for how the market value of your asset was actually harmed. It's somewhat easy to strip out the current cost base of a refrigerator (vs lawn or broken drawers) so go get the answer that's the most efficient and fairest for both parties… that answer is going to be market value considerations.

---

The rental car company absolutely was not doing that, hell they even included diminished value in their bill. They expect the damages to be paid for in full. Period. And I don't think they are wrong. The fact that I, as the renter, purchased a damage waiver or purchased personal auto insurance at my own expense to protect ME from that liability did not change their position at all. They just want their property back to the condition it was when they gave it to me, less NORMAL wear and tear depreciation.

Sorry to derail the op's post. I understand your argument, I just think you are wrong on some of your assumed numbers and how it applies to specific damages that are not normal wear and tear and would not use that method. I would charge them the full cost to repair at least the fridge and the damaged floor. Grass will probably grow back.

Agree to disagree.

Hope it works out for the OP.

Absolute said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

---

The rental car company is highly likely settling out with your insurance company on comparable market value of the car pre and post damage. This is their keep whole calculation and no different than what I'm suggesting.

Do the math. $3k refrigerator. Factor in 10-15% for 18 months of depreciation then 15% for a dented appliance (number I got from the internet… do your own research). You say 'small percentage' but it's around $400. From a market value perspective, this is closest to how much the value of your asset has been harmed by the damage. This is the closest thing to being kept whole.

There has to be a quantitative base for this stuff. I suppose an invoice to replace the door is a way to do that, but most people even in their own homes are more likely to live with cosmetic damages and are only replacing a door if not doing so makes the refrigerator dysfunctional.

Charging the full repair cost at least in my opinion does indeed keep you whole… but at an unnecessary monetary cost to the tenant which isn't fair and an unnecessary hassle to the landlord… which also isn't fair. Other words, nobody is going to receive $700 worth of utility if this repair is done. But… you are owed compensation for how the market value of your asset was actually harmed. It's somewhat easy to strip out the current cost base of a refrigerator (vs lawn or broken drawers) so go get the answer that's the most efficient and fairest for both parties… that answer is going to be market value considerations.

---

The rental car company absolutely was not doing that, hell they even included diminished value in their bill. They expect the damages to be paid for in full. Period. And I don't think they are wrong. The fact that I, as the renter, purchased a damage waiver or purchased personal auto insurance at my own expense to protect ME from that liability did not change their position at all. They just want their property back to the condition it was when they gave it to me, less NORMAL wear and tear depreciation.

---

Take a step back to understand what you are saying.

If this is what you actually believe… I don't think your realize that you actually agree with me. You are getting caught up in the percentages, but what I'm suggesting is lost property is what you are owed less normal wear and tear. That's going to be the difference between a damaged unit and an undamaged unit that's 18 months old… it's probably going to be less than what it costs to actually repair the unit.

I've been a landlord for 12 years and never retained anyone's deposit to make repairs. In this case, I'd order a new door for the fridge and make them pay for it.

Little things like sheet rock repairs, extra cleaning, etc are easily handled. This is not easy nor is it acceptable in its current condition IMO.

schwack schwack said:

---

Brand new fridge when they moved in December 21.

edit: All appliances were new when we purchased the house. They are the only tenants. Discovered when they moved out. They did point out a giant scratch in the new flooring in a bedroom - but not the dents. They also somehow broke 2 kitchen drawers and killed a huge swath of St. Augustine in the yard by putting in a giant above ground pool that we did not OK. They are easily over their deposit if we charge for everything.

edit: Price for a similar fridge at Lowes is $2,999.00 - on sale right now for $1,949.

---

For renters that don't tell me when something gets damaged, I charge the cost of repair plus 30-50% to make it like it was, plus I keep deposits, and I may tack on anything else I can tack on. I have made 300 dollar repairs into 750 dollar fixes if I find it myself. If a tenant lets me know, then I'll still make the repair but it will be at cost, and I won't withhold deposits. I don't have a problem with damage, stuff happens, but blatant damage or hoping I don't notice….nah….I'll make you pay hard for that.

Personally, I'd withhold the full price of the repair. Probably wouldn't fix it though because they seem like careless tenants that will just ruin it again.

I would ding the outgoing tenet maybe $100 and the slap a magnetic calendar over the dent before showing it to new tenets.

Have you called around to any of the PDR shops in your area to see if they will repair? You could probably get it good enough and charge cost plus time to handle the repair along with your other items.

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

---

The rental car company is highly likely settling out with your insurance company on comparable market value of the car pre and post damage. This is their keep whole calculation and no different than what I'm suggesting.

Do the math. $3k refrigerator. Factor in 10-15% for 18 months of depreciation then 15% for a dented appliance (number I got from the internet… do your own research). You say 'small percentage' but it's around $400. From a market value perspective, this is closest to how much the value of your asset has been harmed by the damage. This is the closest thing to being kept whole.

There has to be a quantitative base for this stuff. I suppose an invoice to replace the door is a way to do that, but most people even in their own homes are more likely to live with cosmetic damages and are only replacing a door if not doing so makes the refrigerator dysfunctional.

Charging the full repair cost at least in my opinion does indeed keep you whole… but at an unnecessary monetary cost to the tenant which isn't fair and an unnecessary hassle to the landlord… which also isn't fair. Other words, nobody is going to receive $700 worth of utility if this repair is done. But… you are owed compensation for how the market value of your asset was actually harmed. It's somewhat easy to strip out the current cost base of a refrigerator (vs lawn or broken drawers) so go get the answer that's the most efficient and fairest for both parties… that answer is going to be market value considerations.

---

The rental car company absolutely was not doing that, hell they even included diminished value in their bill. They expect the damages to be paid for in full. Period. And I don't think they are wrong. The fact that I, as the renter, purchased a damage waiver or purchased personal auto insurance at my own expense to protect ME from that liability did not change their position at all. They just want their property back to the condition it was when they gave it to me, less NORMAL wear and tear depreciation.

---

Take a step back to understand what you are saying.

If this is what you actually believe… I don't think your realize that you actually agree with me. You are getting caught up in the percentages, but what I'm suggesting is lost property is what you are owed less normal wear and tear. That's going to be the difference between a damaged unit and an undamaged unit that's 18 months old… it's probably going to be less than what it costs to actually repair the unit.

---

Man, not to be a jerk, but you are just wrong on the rental car thing (sorry for the derail.) and you changed your position. Just got the final statement from my insurance. They paid the full amount for the repairs to the damage of the car from the hail. Period. They did have an agreement with the rental company to not pay administrative fees and diminished value, that I would have had to pay. But THEY PAID FOR THE REPIARS. Depreciation and all of that had nothing to do with it. They sent an invoice with pictures and itemized damages. Had I not paid to have protection, I would have been fully responsible for that damage and that cost.

Honestly, going that route is over thinking. As landloards/investors we assume and accept the loss of wear and tear and depreciation (outside of what we write off.). Unusual or excessive damage should be charged, unless maybe there is a business reason not to charge.

I agree with the poster above. If the tenant is communicating and tells me about an accident (they happen) I am extremely lenient. If they are not, I am not. If they abuse my property and I legally can charge them, I will.

Wanted to add.

The op is obviously conflicted on what to do here, which I can understand, and they got a variety of ideas. None are exclusively right or wrong. That is the beauty of it. Everyone can handle this type of thing as they see fit.

I suspect most landlords are like me. We are not rich, we are trying to make a living and set up some retirement. We can identify with a renter.

If atm9000 wants to handle this type of thing with depreciation calculations and feels good about it, great. Go for it. I and from the responses others, would not. But that is okay. You be you! If that model works for you great!

I'm not sure I understand the controversy here. As the OP states the overall damage exceeds the deposit regardless of how much damage is allocated. And I doubt they will get any additional money above that. At least not without a legal fight. And knowing their posting history over the last ten years that just does not seem like a viable solution.

So keep the deposit and move on. I would not fix the dent if it was me. The refrigerator works fine and functional so I doubt it hurts it's rental income

Absolute said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

The more I think about it, the more I think it it is fair to charge to make it what it was. Even without the other damages, but maybe moreso with them. And the more I disagree with the poster who talked about a small percentage for scratch and dent stuff. Those type thing are typically not really visible.

The tenant agrees in this contract to take reasonable care and be responsible for things beyond that. As landlords we ultimately are on the hook for much more expensive damages than the, ultimately small by comparison, security deposit. They messed up. You are entitled to be made whole, as much as possible in the agreement.

I had a rental car earlier this year that got caught in a hail storm. The rental company was absolutely ready to charge me to fix that cosmetic damage. And I didn't have an issue with it. They deserve to be made whole by a damage waiver or my insurance.

I was wavering when I first posted. Now I say I would absolutely charge them for the doors and other reasonable damages out of their deposit.

---

The rental car company is highly likely settling out with your insurance company on comparable market value of the car pre and post damage. This is their keep whole calculation and no different than what I'm suggesting.

Do the math. $3k refrigerator. Factor in 10-15% for 18 months of depreciation then 15% for a dented appliance (number I got from the internet… do your own research). You say 'small percentage' but it's around $400. From a market value perspective, this is closest to how much the value of your asset has been harmed by the damage. This is the closest thing to being kept whole.

There has to be a quantitative base for this stuff. I suppose an invoice to replace the door is a way to do that, but most people even in their own homes are more likely to live with cosmetic damages and are only replacing a door if not doing so makes the refrigerator dysfunctional.

Charging the full repair cost at least in my opinion does indeed keep you whole… but at an unnecessary monetary cost to the tenant which isn't fair and an unnecessary hassle to the landlord… which also isn't fair. Other words, nobody is going to receive $700 worth of utility if this repair is done. But… you are owed compensation for how the market value of your asset was actually harmed. It's somewhat easy to strip out the current cost base of a refrigerator (vs lawn or broken drawers) so go get the answer that's the most efficient and fairest for both parties… that answer is going to be market value considerations.

---

The rental car company absolutely was not doing that, hell they even included diminished value in their bill. They expect the damages to be paid for in full. Period. And I don't think they are wrong. The fact that I, as the renter, purchased a damage waiver or purchased personal auto insurance at my own expense to protect ME from that liability did not change their position at all. They just want their property back to the condition it was when they gave it to me, less NORMAL wear and tear depreciation.

---

Take a step back to understand what you are saying.

If this is what you actually believe… I don't think your realize that you actually agree with me. You are getting caught up in the percentages, but what I'm suggesting is lost property is what you are owed less normal wear and tear. That's going to be the difference between a damaged unit and an undamaged unit that's 18 months old… it's probably going to be less than what it costs to actually repair the unit.

---

Honestly, going that route is over thinking. As landloards/investors we assume and accept the loss of wear and tear and depreciation (outside of what we write off.). Unusual or excessive damage should be charged, unless maybe there is a business reason not to charge.

I agree with the poster above. If the tenant is communicating and tells me about an accident (they happen) I am extremely lenient. If they are not, I am not. If they abuse my property and I legally can charge them, I will.

---

But see, your last paragraph is about feelings… it isn't about value or facts.

And I'm aligned with you in your first paragraph. Objectively, a tenant doesn't harm you beyond damage they've caused to your value. You call what I'm suggesting overthinking it, but, objectively, it is the calculation you would do to determine harm in value. Whether or not you repair, sell and replace or leave as is is 100% the landlord's choice and the tenant shouldn't be liable if the landlord makes a choice that puts total money into an appliance well above the retail price of it after normal wear and tear (which in this case is depreciation).

To take this to an extreme, I think everybody would agree that if a tenant stained a 10 year old carpet, that they shouldn't owe the landlord a brand new replacement.

I agree with you 100%.

If a fridge has a 10 year useful life and it was just 1 year old, then the tenant should pay 90% of the problem / replacement. It may be impossible to just order 1 door.

I had a similar problem with a tenant who always used her foot to close the freezer drawer, which dented the hell out of the stainless steel. I charged her for the cost to replace the stainless steel panel (not the entire drawer front). It was only a couple hundred dollars and I replaced it myself.