Anita Letter

FROM: Adrian Assassi, Matthew Baker, Galen Carlson, Todd Wilkinson, and Ansel Wallenfang PO Box 91022 Santa Barbara, CA 93190 - Previous tenants of 227 Mesa Verde Dr., Santa Barbara, CA 93110, herein referred to as “we”. TO: Anita Escamilla 1490 N. San Marcos Rd. Santa Barbara, CA 93111 - Owner/manager of 227 Mesa Verde Dr, Santa Barbara, CA 93110, herein referred to as “landlord”.

RE: Landlord’s July 17, 2006, letter and deposit refund check; copy attached. Dear Landlord, We received landlord’s letter stating the damages landlord claims to have incurred as a result of our tenancy at 227 Mesa Verde Dr. from (insert dates here) and the enclosed check in the amount of $1750.00. We were very surprised to receive only $1750.00 from our $3000.00 deposit that we paid in good faith when our lease began (see Civil Code Sections 1950.5(b), (e). We are disputing these charges because: 1. We did not cause any damages to the house during our residency. 2. We cleaned the house very thoroughly and left the house considerably cleaner than it was when we took up residency (see CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(b)(3). 3. We requested via certified mail that landlord be present for an inspection of the house and our request was refused by landlord (see CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(f)(1). Landlord also failed to deliver written notice of our option to request an inspection as required in CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(f)(1) 4. Our photographic and video evidence of the condition of the house shows the state of the property when we moved in and when we left. This evidence clearly shows the trash, unclean living areas, and debris that we had to clean up to safely occupy the house. We wish to resolve this matter in a timely fashion and receive our deposit back in full as soon as possible. Please see below for an itemized (items A-F) list of the charges we are disputing as false/fraudulent. A) In reference to item 1 on the list of damages landlord claims to have sustained in landlord’s July 17, 2006 letter (attached), the living room carpet (square, beige carpet remnant) was not damaged or removed from the property. It is rolled up and in the garage at the property and is in landlord’s possession. Therefore, we are not responsible for replacing it. Disputed amount: $350.00 B) In reference to item 2 on the list, the carpets were vacuumed and shampooed before we moved out of the house. We carefully cleaned these carpets and do not feel that we should pay for cleaning that we did, in fact, perform. Disputed amount: $250.00

C) In reference to items 3, 4, and 5 on the list, the paint in the house was not damaged during our tenancy. Any slight scuffs or dirt that may be visible was caused by normal wear and tear and we maintain that we are not responsible for the painting of these areas (see CA Civil Code Sections 1950.5(b),(e). Disputed amount: $375.00 D) In reference to items 6 and 7 on the list, the kitchen was cleaned before we left. Considering the condition of the kitchen when we moved in (floors, counters, and oven were very dirty, and there was old food in the refrigerator), we left it in a far cleaner condition that it was at the beginning of our lease (see CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(b)(3). The kitchen had been in use by landlord and workers before we moved in and we had to clean it extensively before we could use it. Therefore, we are not responsible for any further cleaning of the kitchen aside from that which we have already performed. Disputed amount: $75 E) In reference to item 8 on the list, we ask that landlord provides documentation, such as receipts, of any charges landlord incurred to remove the washer and dryer (see CA Civil Code Section 1950.5(g)(2). Disputed amount: $80.00 F) In reference to item 9 on the list, all of the bathrooms were cleaned extensively before we vacated the premises. Landlord does not specify which bathroom was dirty and had to be cleaned, but we maintain that we carefully cleaned all of them to a far cleaner state that they were in when we took up residency. Any damages from our occupancy were very slight and considered normal wear and tear; therefore, we are not responsible for any further cleaning that landlord claims to have performed (see CA Civil Code Sections 1950.5(b),(e). Disputed amount: $80.00 We feel that we have performed our responsibilities as tenants in an extremely reasonable fashion. We ask that landlord does the same and refunds us the amount we are due, $3000.00, in a timely manner. We feel strongly about what we consider to be false/fraudulent charges and will pursue reimbursement to the full extent of the law. Signed, Matt Baker Adrian Assassi Todd Wilkinson Galen Carlson Ansel Wallenfang 07/26/2006