The deposit follows the property, not the seller
Idaho Code 6-321(3): "If security deposits have been made as to a particular rental or lease property, and the property changes ownership during a tenancy, the new owner shall be liable for refund of the deposits."
That cuts both ways and both matter. A seller does not discharge the deposit obligation by selling. A buyer inherits it, whether or not the money was ever transferred at closing — which is why the deposit should be an explicit line in the transaction rather than an assumption.
The same section sets the refund terms: within 21 days if no time is fixed by agreement, and within 30 days in any event after the tenant surrenders the premises. Any partial refund must come with a signed statement itemising what was retained, why, and a detailed list of expenditures.
A landlord "shall not retain any part of a security deposit to cover normal wear and tear," which the statute defines as deterioration from the use the unit is intended for, without negligence, carelessness, accident, misuse or abuse. A tired unit is not a damaged one.
Whether the lease binds the buyer turns on the recording act
Idaho Code 55-812 provides that "Every conveyance of real property other than a lease for a term not exceeding one (1) year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee of the same property … in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded."
The carve-out is the important part. A lease for a term of one year or less sits outside that rule, so it is not void against a later purchaser merely for being unrecorded. A lease longer than one year that was never recorded falls inside it.
That is the statutory mechanism, not an answer about any particular lease. Whether a specific lease binds a specific buyer turns on facts the section does not resolve — notably whether the purchaser took in good faith, which a tenant's visible possession can bear on. Anyone stating flatly that a lease always survives a sale, or that a buyer can always terminate an unrecorded one, has skipped past the part that decides it.
Rentals are not exempt from disclosure
Idaho's property condition disclosure requirement applies to "any residential real property, including nonowner occupied rental property" of not less than one nor more than four dwelling units. Owning it as an investment rather than living in it does not remove the obligation.
The Ada County Assessor draws the same line for valuation purposes: residential appraisers handle multi-family up to four units, and apartments move to the commercial team.
The remedy for unauthorised occupants is narrower than people expect
Idaho Code 6-310A lets a property owner ask the county sheriff to immediately remove people unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling. It is genuinely fast, and it is genuinely narrow — eight conditions must all be met.
Three of them rule out most of what sellers mean by the word squatter. The occupants must not be "current or former tenants pursuant to a written or oral rental agreement authorized by the property owner." They must not be immediate family members of the owner. And there must be no pending litigation about the property between the owner and any known unauthorised occupant.
A holdover tenant, a relative who will not leave, or anyone you are already in litigation with is outside this section entirely. Those go through ordinary eviction. Treating 6-310A as a shortcut around that process is a mistake, and the Ada County Court Assistance Office is explicit that its own eviction forms cover non-payment only.
Selling occupied, in practice
We buy occupied rentals in Ada County and we do not require a property to be delivered vacant. Where there is a lease we expect to take it subject to its terms, and where there is a deposit we expect it accounted for at closing rather than waved at.
If the tenancy is the problem rather than the property, that is worth saying out loud early. It changes what the property is worth to any buyer, ourselves included.