When Zane Robledo and his roommates moved out of their NOVA Student Housing-owned property in August, they expected to see their $10,000 security deposit return to their accounts within three weeks. Instead, Robledo said the check they received from the property manager bounced, and three months later, they’re still waiting to get their money back. 

“In July, they had emailed us a statement as we were moving out of what damages we owed on the security deposit, which was nothing,” said Robledo, who graduated from USC in 2025 with a business administration degree. “But when I deposited the check, I waited about a week for it to go through, and the entire check bounced.”

Robledo is one of several former tenants who said they’ve struggled to recover thousands of dollars in security deposits from NOVA, a network of student housing properties owned by Olga Moraga and managed by Anthony Ramirez. The properties are primarily located north and west of University Park Campus and are a mix of houses and apartment buildings.

In interviews with the Daily Trojan, five tenants described long delays, excessive deductions to their security deposits and limited options for legal recourse due to restrictive clauses in their lease agreements. 

Under California law, landlords are required to return security deposits within 21 days, either in full or after deductions with an itemized list of the charges and reasons. But several NOVA tenants told the Daily Trojan management often waited until the last possible day, or longer, before issuing refunds. 

In a statement to the Daily Trojan, Ramirez wrote that all security deposits are deposited within 21 days, even if it does not reach the tenant within that time frame, and that issues only arise when new checks have to be issued due to a change in payment instructions, or other “unique circumstances.”

“All efforts to engage with residents are made in good faith. Wherever there is an error, oversight, or shortcoming, every effort is made to correct it and make up for it in the best way possible,” the statement read. 

For Robledo, problems with his security deposit started after his lease ended in July. After the check bounced, he said, NOVA told him that the issue arose because he had deposited the check with his phone, and the company said he would have to go to an in-person bank. Soon after, communication with Ramirez abruptly stopped.

“I gave them the names that were on the check, the new address that I had since moved into after moving out of this old place. And then from there, it was radio silence,” Robledo said. “They’ve never got back to me. They’ve never called me. They never emailed me. I’ve tried calling them since they don’t pick up my calls.”

Lindsey Morton, another former tenant, also said she had disputes and delays over deductions, which she described as “malicious.” Morton, who graduated from USC in 2023 with an industrial engineering degree, alleged that the company charged her for pre-existing damages and inflated cleaning fees for her and her roommates’ security deposit. 

Morton said she provided documentation to contest the charges, but negotiations dragged on until the landlord finally issued a partial refund. The Daily Trojan reviewed emails confirming that Morton received her security deposit on Sept. 1, 31 days after her lease ended on July 31.  

“It was, overall, a lot of back and forth, a lot of false promises. [It] definitely felt like they were doing everything they could to get as much money out of us as possible,” Morton said. 

Robledo, who said he has yet to receive his security deposit from NOVA, said options for how he moves forward are not as easy as he hoped. He said he considered pursuing legal action, but has faced difficulty due to the lease agreement, which he described as “anti-tenant.” 

The company’s lease includes a series of provisions centered on attorney’s fees and court filings that make it difficult and expensive for tenants to pursue legal action or recourse, said John Guerrini, an attorney who specialises in California housing law and the lawyer that Robledo consulted with regarding possible legal representation. 

“It’s a very onerous, extremely one-sided agreement, now, the fact that it’s [one-sided], doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unenforceable, it may very well be,” Guerrini said. “Sometimes courts will look at it and say, ‘There really was no equal bargaining here. It was a “take it or leave it” contract, and I don’t like this provision.’”

The lease forces disputes into arbitration, a form of private and binding dispute resolution procedure which can cost more than small claims court, where the issue could otherwise be resolved. If NOVA were to lose the case, the lease agreement dictates that tenants may only recover up to $500 in attorney fees. 

Guerrini said this can dissuade attorneys from working with students because it could force them to spend more than $10,000 in arbitration fees, while their potential to recover attorney’s fees is capped at $500. 

The clause also forces the tenant to take on half of the arbitration fees, which Guerrini described as “exceedingly expensive.” 

“What NOVA is hoping is that no one will ever pursue them, because it [would not] be economical,” Guerrini said. 

Regarding the lease terms, Ramirez said that NOVA’s leases are “standardized residential lease agreements” that are commonly used for most properties around USC. The Daily Trojan could not independently confirm this claim. He claimed that the majority of residents are happy with their stay and that around half renew their lease and stay until graduation. 

The former tenants interviewed by the DT described similar experiences with maintenance issues and what they described as excessive charges and poor communication from management.

Babette, a parent who handled the lease for her son and his roommates from 2023 to 2025, said her family also experienced “radio silence” and late deposit issues during both years they rented from NOVA. Babette said she called week after week, once up to 15 times in a day, and mailed letters that returned unopened. She got her son’s security deposit three months late after telling NOVA to mail the check to her husband’s law office. 

Sanskar Tewatia, who graduated USC in 2024 with a Master of Science in electrical and computer engineering, alleged that NOVA created unsafe living conditions and a lack of transparency in how utilities were billed. When sudden rains had hit, the apartment flooded due to the design of the windows, and Tewatia said that there were no immediate fixes. 

In a statement to the Daily Trojan, Ramirez acknowledged that there had been a window leak previously, but said it was due to an “unprecedented storm” where it rained for 72 hours straight. He also claimed that the landlord attempted to fix the problem as it was happening, and that it was resolved after the storm passed.  

Out of a $3,200 security deposit, Tewatia said his group received only $100 back — and he alleged they had been overcharged on water and sewage utilities.

The properties are owned by Olga Moraga according to property records shared with the Daily Trojan, but tenants who spoke to the Daily Trojan said Ramirez was their main point of contact for leases, payments and repairs. Public records list Ramirez as the owner of NOVA Student Housing LLC.

Brandi, a USC alum who leased with NOVA from 2021 to 2022, said they faced similar issues of communication troubles and maintenance issues during their lease. The former tenant, who declined to share their last name for privacy concerns, said they were mostly in contact with Moraga, the landlord, while leasing with NOVA. When asked how long it took for Moraga to respond to texts and emails regarding maintenance issues, such as a broken washing machine, the answer was consistent with other tenants’ experiences with NOVA: Weeks passed without contact. 

Brandi said their experience was emblematic of a larger issue for students at USC: the lack of affordable and easy housing options, especially for students who do not come from wealthy families. 

“There’s a large majority of students that are wealthier and that are able to pay for housing that’s more comfortable. And then the students that are there on scholarships or are low income [are] left with so few options,” Brandi said. “You have to be willing to have your housing manager not respond to you, or have things break and not get fixed. It just sucks for the students.”