Request By:
Ms. Lynda Schrader
Consumer Affairs Investigator
Department of Consumer Affairs
Civic Plaza Building
701 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Richard O. Wyatt, Assistant Attorney General
This letter is in reply to your request for an official opinion from this office dated September 28, 1979. Specifically you ask whether a landlord subject to KRS 383.580 may deduct from a tenant's security deposit the cost of battery replacement for a smoke detector which is in the premises as required by the City of Louisville's Codified General Ordinances, Chapter 1303.
The security deposit required under KRS 383.580 is to secure ". . . the landlord against financial loss due to damage to the premises occasioned by the tenant's occupancy other than ordinary wear and tear. " [KRS 383.545(13)]. Since a city legislative board cannot enact any ordinance inconsistent with existing state law, even if Ordinance 1303.07 attempted to make the replacement cost of the batteries a deductible expense from the security deposit, that provision would be unenforceable.
However, such was not the attempt of the Board of Aldermen. The entire purpose of 1303.07(1)(d) of the Ordinance is to set out the landlord's responsibility of maintaining the detectors in operating condition. Subsection (i) clearly indicates that the landlord must provide operable smoke detectors in his premises. This, of necessity, would require furnishing batteries. Subsection (iii) details the limited tenant responsibilities of periodic testing and battery replacement. Repair or replacement of the units remains the responsibility of the landlord. This subsection details reasonable standards for the protection of both parties. The tenant is spared the inconvenience of landlord intrusion for testing the detectors. Likewise, the landlord is protected against the inconvenience of being called to inspect a unit which merely needs batteries. Further, the landlord is protected from potential tenant abuse of using the detector's batteries as replacements for his own equipment and then requiring the landlord to furnish replacements.
Further, Subsection (iv) of the Ordinance reiterates the landlord's responsibility to have the detectors operable prior to a new tenant's possession. This would include checking the batteries and replacing if necessary.
The only remaining point on this issue is whether a landlord may deduct the cost of batteries from a security deposit if the tenant vacates the apartment taking the batteries with him. While batteries going dead would certainly be considered normal wear and tear, removing the batteries would be considered damage within the meaning of KRS 383.545(13) and KRS 383.580.