WEAR AND TEAR

Once upon a time, a prime property was leased out. The lease went smoothly for years, until the move-out inspection.

The lessor found marks on the wood flooring. His contractor said that to fix them, the floors of the whole property would have to be sanded and refinished. The bill came to several hundred thousand pesos, and the lessor charged it against the security deposit.

The tenant thought this was absurd. He went back to look at the marks and saw small round dents, probably from his wife's and their guests' heels.

The argument got heated. The tenant said it was normal wear and tear. The lessor said it was neglect, because the tenant was supposed to take off shoes inside the house.

Who's right?

The Civil Code says the lessee must return the property as he received it, except for what was lost or damaged by time, ordinary wear and tear, or unavoidable causes (Art. 1665). The question is what counts as "ordinary."

In another case, the marks on the floor came from dining chairs that came with the property and had lost their rubber pads. Is that wear and tear? Reasonable people can disagree, and that's the problem.

So settle it before the lease is signed, not at move-out:

• Show the lessor photos of common types of damage and ask which ones they consider wear and tear.

• Share that list with the prospective tenant and get them to agree.

• Take dated photos of the property at turnover, especially floors and countertops.

This matters most for things that can't be repaired in part and have to be refinished or replaced as a whole, like wood floors, stone countertops and built-in furniture. If a property has these, agree on what wear and tear means up front.