united-states california civil-law landlord tenant
Can a landlord demand that a house rented when new be returned to &quot;new&quot; condition?
<p>We are living in California. In our lease agreement, it states under the "condition" section:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Tenant acknowledges these items are clean and operable condition,
  with the following exceptions: Tenant acknowledges that the building
  and everything in it is new.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now we plan to move out. The house has regular wear-and-tear, no excessive wear. The landlord says he will renovate the house at our expense to bring it back to "new" condition.</p>

<p>We say it is unlawful to demand a house back in "new" condition that has appropriate wear-and-tear. It also states in the contract:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All or any portion of the security deposit may be used, as reasonably
  necessary, to: (i) cure Tenant's default in payment of Rent (which
  includes Late Charges, NSF fees or other sums due); (ii) repair
  damage, excluding ordinary wear and tear, caused by Tenant or by a
  guest or licensee of Tenant; (iii) clean Premises, if necessary, upon
  termination of the tenancy; and (iv) replace or return personal
  property or appurtenances. SECURITY DEPOSIT SHALL NOT BE USED BY
  TENANT IN LIEU OF PAYMENT OF LAST MONTH'S RENT. If all or any portion
  of the security deposit is used during the tenancy, Tenant agrees to
  reinstate the total security deposit within five days after written
  notice is delivered to Tenant. Within 21 days after Tenant vacates the
  Premises, Landlord shall: (1) furnish Tenant an itemized statement
  indicating the amount of any security deposit received and the basis
  for its disposition and supporting documentation as required by
  California Civil Code § 1950.5(g); and (2) return any remaining
  portion of the security deposit to Tenant.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Who is right?</p>

<p>You have acknowledged that the house was in "new" condition, which establishes a baseline for determining if the present state is normal wear and tear. The lease and <a href="http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml" rel="noreferrer">California law</a> agree that normal wear and tear is not the responsibility of the tenant. You may then need to sue the landlord in small claims court to get the remainder of the deposit (the above guide will be useful). The thing that is not clear is exactly what constitutes "normal wear and tear". The state guide tends to emphasize extreme forms of damage such as dogs chewing the woodwork, or cigarette burns. If you do ordinary cleaning on the walls, windows, carpets etc. then it is more likely that the judge will find in your favor.</p>

<p>The legal system is not always about who is right.  I am not a lawyer.  </p>

<p>I agree with the answer from user6726 that new just establishes the baseline for which to compare normal wear and tear.  </p>

<p>Tell the landlord verbally and in writing you do not intend to pay for restore to new. Have a witness. Have record he was informed of your intention not to pay before he started the renovation. </p>

<p>Take pictures when you leave. Have it extra clean. If you can get a video of landlord inspecting.</p>

<p>Landlord will need to sue you for expenses beyond the damage deposit if you refuse to pay. </p>

<p>If the landlord does not return your damage deposit you will need to sue to get all or some of it back.  </p>
