Rental: am I responsible for all maintenance, including that caused by wear and tear, under $200?
<blockquote>
  <p><strong>tl/dr:</strong> My property manager (PM) states that I'm responsible for all maintenance under $200 in the home, regardless of whether it is the result of damage I
  cause.  This is on the basis of a clause in the lease that I find very
  ambiguous.  This also is at odds with my (admittedly non-expert)
  understanding of real estate law.  Is it possible I'm actually on the
  hook for repairs clearly caused by standard wear-and-tear, and which
  are not at all my fault?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I just moved into a new rental home and there have been a number of maintenance items that have needed repair, which the owner has paid for.  However the property manager has recently stated that we are responsible for <em>all</em> maintenance items under $200.  That sounds very much at odds with my understanding of "real estate law" (aka the landlord is always responsible for basic wear and tear), and didn't sound like anything I read in the lease so I looked it over.  There are two clauses in the lease related to maintenance:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>TENANT TO MAINTAIN; USE OF PREMISES;</strong></p>
  
  <p>TENANT shall be responsible for the cost of all minor repairs and
  damages to the PREMISES due to the default, negligence, or willful
  misconduct of TENANT or TENANT'S family or guests, including [long
  list of perfectly reasonable things].  TENANT to alert the LANDLORD to
  any declining conditions inside and outside of the PREMISES included
  but not limited to [another list of things].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me.  Farther down it says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Maintenance:</strong> The Tenant agrees to properly maintain the home and complete, at his own expense, all daily maintenance EXCLUDING furnace/AC, water heater, appliance replacement and major repairs.  The tenant is responsible for the cleaning of all clogged drain lines.  If the home is located within a community governed by a Homeowners Association, Tenant does hereby agree to abide by the rules and bylaws of said Association (<em>Exceeding $200 maintenance threshold contact owner/landlord</em>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(emphasis mine).  That last bit - <code>Exceeding $200 maintenance threshold contact owner/landlord</code> - is what the PM pointed to as establishing that I am responsible for <em>all</em> maintenance under $200.  That is not at all how I understood that sentence.  The reason is because this is a section talking about <em>daily maintenance</em>, i.e. the regular things that need to happen to keep a house running - changing air filters, light bulbs, snow removal, etc...  and that the $200 threshold only applies to items such as these.  However the PM believes this means that I'm instead responsible for any maintenance under $200.</p>

<p>To pick a specific example, the basement just lost all power.  An electrician just left and determined that there is a wiring issue in the walls and a new wire needs to be run.  From the perspective of the PM, if the electrician charges less than $200 it is my responsibility because of this clause in the lease.</p>

<p>I can't decide if I simply misread this lease because of my own expectations on the division of duties between tenant and landlord (aka the landlord is <em>always</em> responsible for all normal wear and tear - such as a wire breaking somewhere in the walls), or if the PMs understanding of this clause is completely at odds with basic property management law and therefore incorrect.  Obviously though I need to figure out which is the case so I know how to respond.  If I signed a lease I shouldn't have because I misread an important clause, then I'm going to have to eat this one and let it be the cost of learning an important lesson...  So...</p>

<p><strong>Is my PMs understanding of the situation correct?</strong></p>

<p>Bizarrely, it depends on where you live in Kentucky. There is <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39159" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a law</a>, the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (KRS 383.500 to 383.705) which states limits on residential leases (otherwise, the matter would be governed by the terms of the contract and common law). The state didn't enact those laws as enforceable in the state, it "made them available" for  cities,  counties  and  urban-county  governments to adopt unmodified (or not). So it depends in part on whether your locale adopted the law. Assuming it did, in the <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=35726" rel="nofollow noreferrer">definitions</a>, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(13)"Security deposit" means an escrow payment made to the landlord
  under the rental agreement  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
  landlord  against  financial  loss  due  to damage  to  the  premises 
  occasioned  by  the  tenant's  occupancy  <strong>other  than  ordinary wear
  and tear</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(emphasis added)
That would mean that they can't take the cost of carpet cleaning, painting etc. out of your security deposit.</p>

<p><a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=35736" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§383.595</a> (again, if applicable) states the obligations of the landlord, so he must</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Maintain   in   good   and   safe   working   order   and   condition 
  all   electrical, plumbing,  sanitary,  heating,  ventilating, 
  air-conditioning,  and  other  facilities and  appliances,  including 
  elevators,  supplied  or  required  to  be  supplied  by him</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it depends on whether the URLTA was enacted in your jurisdiction. <a href="http://kyjustice.org/node/708" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This page</a> indicates where that is the law, and also urges you to read the lease.</p>

contract-law rental-property tenant kentucky