why does this seem wrong?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Im not sure but for some reason this seems wrong to me. Me and tuber just rented a new house. No one has ever lived in it and some time in the future if we want to buy it we have the option, however the deposit disturbs me. We paid 850.00 us dollars for the deposit which is to be cashed immedeitaly. Im sure the owner will put this in a interest growing account but we as renters have no claim to the interest that the owner gets. And then for renting if their are damages to the house we can be held responsible and our deposit gone plus they can charge us more for what ever he wants.
The deposit that we gave him that is earning intrest and will be more then 850 by the time we move is his, how is that right?
Im sure no one really cares but this is an economic issue that effects most renters and im courious why the renters who put up the depoist to begin with, isnt entitled to the interst on thier money

[joncha]

You're right. Here, deposit legally needs to be paid back plus interest. Not every renter insists on it, though, so it doesn't always happen.

[Cort Haus]

In 20 years of renting, and a typical deposit these days of nearly $2000, I've never had a chance of getting interest on this. Good for the USA if the renter is entitled to interest.

[KrazyHorse]

Depending on the location your deposit should be paid back plus 4% simple interest.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Here our deposit is a deposit to secure future damages.. If we dont cause no damage we get all of our 850 back. if not then he can keep that plus charge us more if he deems damage more then that. Not to mention he gets to keep the interest on our security deposit the he is earning the whole time we live there. IN short he is earing money off my money and if we leave his house in the same condition we got it in how is it that he makes off our money and we dont?

[Tattila the Hun]

I'd imagine it isn't exactly "same condition". You can't tear down walls, or dig holes ala Silence of the Lambs, but nails on the walls for paintings, or simple wear and tear of the floors, the signs of living, should be OK, and not grounds for any sort of charges.

Plus, you need to consider his side. What if you do tear down the wall? Or, like one instance here, keep a goat in one closet... Then declare bancrupty or what have you, and he gets stuck with the repair bill. Of course, there are those, who look at the marks doors leave on the doorstoppers, those rubbery thingies, and claim those are grounds for keeping the deposit... But those are crooks, and I'd imagine there are some people or bureaus, who consumer can turn to in such a case. Ombudsman, I think. (Wierd to see a swedish word used...)

But that's Finland, dunno about the Land of the Sue Them Until They Bleed From Their Ears.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think I have ever gotten interest. Of course, I have only rented twice.

JM

[Addled Platypus]

if you are in California -NO

http://blogs.ocregister.com/moneyq/archives/2006/10/should_the_landlord_pay_intere.html

look up the state you are in Mrs. Tuberski

[Berzerker]

landlords got tired of renters who take off after devaluing the property.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Yeah that is his security blanket that you are not going to trash his place and then just take off.

also be careful since I had one keep it on me for no good reason, and I had little recourse to collect it since all I had was a po box and a tel number. I would have had to gone to small claims court, and I wasn't worth the $275 since I moved 200 miles away.

[SlowwHand]

Re: why does this seem wrong?

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Im not sure but for some reason this seems wrong to me. Me and tuber just rented a new house. No one has ever lived in it and some time in the future if we want to buy it we have the option, however the deposit disturbs me. We paid 850.00 us dollars for the deposit which is to be cashed immedeitaly. Im sure the owner will put this in a interest growing account but we as renters have no claim to the interest that the owner gets. And then for renting if their are damages to the house we can be held responsible and our deposit gone plus they can charge us more for what ever he wants.
The deposit that we gave him that is earning intrest and will be more then 850 by the time we move is his, how is that right?
Im sure no one really cares but this is an economic issue that effects most renters and im courious why the renters who put up the depoist to begin with, isnt entitled to the interst on thier money

Right now we're renting a 2 bedroom 2 story condo. 860 a month. 860 deposit plus 300 cat deposit.
I don't anticipate seeing a dime of it back.

[DAVOUT]

It would be wrong if only you were not receiving interest on your deposit. On the contrary, the missing interest is part of the total cost of renting the house.
Therefore, if the deposit is equal to one month rent, the total monthly cost is : 850+[(850*0,04)/12]=852,83.
We can reasonnably assume that if the owner were obliged to pay the interest, he would increase the rent in due proportion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by joncha
You're right. Here, deposit legally needs to be paid back plus interest. Not every renter insists on it, though, so it doesn't always happen.

In Canada I think every province mandates that deposits be paid back WITH interest. The amounts are generally pretty low though

Mrs tubes --- interest on 850?? Its like 20 bucks a YEAR. Have him buy you a pizza and call it square

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Yeah that is his security blanket that you are not going to trash his place and then just take off.

also be careful since I had one keep it on me for no good reason, and I had little recourse to collect it since all I had was a po box and a tel number. I would have had to gone to small claims court, and I wasn't worth the $275 since I moved 200 miles away.

Some landlords pull the deposit retention crap all the time. My sister had that happen. The landlord wanted to keep the full 800. She fought him until he returned 600. She thought retaining the last 200 was crap but since she was one of 5 roomates, she was out $40 herself and it wasn't worth the hassle

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Here our deposit is a deposit to secure future damages.. If we dont cause no damage we get all of our 850 back. if not then he can keep that plus charge us more if he deems damage more then that. Not to mention he gets to keep the interest on our security deposit the he is earning the whole time we live there. IN short he is earing money off my money and if we leave his house in the same condition we got it in how is it that he makes off our money and we dont?

It's a contract. The parties to a contract can agree to anything -- as long as it isn't against the law.

If you could get him to agree to pay you interest on your deposit, then you'd get it. (Get his promise in writing on the agreement. "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.")

The practical problem you'll run into is that landlords just plain don't work that way. Almost all charge security deposits, but I've never known one to agree to pay the interest to the renter.

What SlowwHand says is correct:

Right now we're renting a 2 bedroom 2 story condo. 860 a month. 860 deposit plus 300 cat deposit. I don't anticipate seeing a dime of it back.

...although a lot of that depends upon what the security deposit covers. Sometimes it's just damages...which usually means getting some money back. Often it's clearing, painting and damages. When I left my apartment in Hawaii, I spent two days cleaning until it glistened like a diamond. The landlord still sent in a cleaning crew and charged me for it. By then, I was in California...so what could I do??

But the good news it that, if you exercise your option to buy the house, he won't have an excuse to do "repairs" or "cleaning."