Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Security Deposit

B's "vacating" the premises is meaningless from the landlord's legal point of view, because the landlord has rented to A and B and as long as A resides there, the premises are not vacant.

There are two remaining issues. (1) Should the landlord have refunded the deposit to A alone, or should he have made the refund payable to A and B? and (2) does B have an action against A for his share (whatever that may be) of the deposit?

As to the first question, the landlord should probably refund the deposit by a check made payable to both tenants, or alternatively, to the co-tenant from whom it was originally received. However, the landlord can defend his choice of tenant to whom the refund is given on the ground that the co-tenants are agents for one another.

As to (2), barring any contrary understanding between A and B, each is entitled to the portion of the deposit he originally contributed, adjusted for any unequal fault or responsibility for the deductions made by the landlord, whether for cleaning or unpaid rent, and further adjusted for any financial consequence of B's earlier move-out.

In short, a judge would decide a lawsuit between A and B on the real-world equities of the situation, but the landlord should be in the clear at this stage.

Re: Security Deposit

No, but A should sue the landlord for charging for reasonable wear and tear--A should get triple damages for the wrongful acts of the landlord. Also, if B has harrassed A at all about this, then A should also sue B for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That B guy is a real jerk.