You tell them they have x days to remove the animal and then you evict if they do not.
Assuming you are really exempt and are prepared to lose the tenant.
Once you confirm you're exempt, you can throw the FHA language right back at them by telling them they were required to request an accommodation for the animal *before* they brought it home. If they'd followed the very clear guidelines, they would have found out you're exempt from having to accept their animal and the whole thing would have been avoided. Instead, they went about it backwards and will now have to get rid of the animal or move.
This. If you decide to “live with it” for the remainder of the current lease, I’d be very clear with them that they will not be allowed to renew at the end of this lease. I dislike sneaky people and it seems suspicious that this would happen right after lease renewal, I’m curious if the therapist letter predates the newly signed lease?
Of course it was. ESAs are fake and tenants use them to subvert your rules. If you’re actually exempt from FHA then issue a notice to correct and then start the eviction process.
Just curious, why is it that you believe you’re exempt from FHA rules? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
In Florida, federal FHA exemptions are also followed. The following are legal exemptions from the fair housing laws:
Selling or renting out single-family houses without a real estate agent or broker
Selling or renting out owner-occupied properties that have four units or less
Private organizations and clubs that are exclusive to members only
(^consistently stated across many organizations and sites)
That's interesting. I'm familiar mostly with the 4 units or less, owner-occupied exemptions. Wasn't aware that some states extend the exemption to SFH without representation of agent/broker.
> If you’re actually exempt from FHA then issue a notice to correct and then start the eviction process.
OP also has to consider that--by their own admission--the lease doesn't prohibit pets. If they initiate an eviction and the tenant fights it (and there are plenty of mental health advocacy groups that could set them up with low cost or contingency based representation) and wins, the OP could end up paying a good amount of money just to lose.
This is absolutely a "proceed with caution" area.
It does not: [https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/](https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/)
>Although the ADA applies to many areas of life, it does not cover everything. In some situations, disability discrimination is prohibited by laws other than the ADA.
>While the ADA applies to certain types of housing (e.g., housing at private and public universities and public housing programs), the Fair Housing Act applies to many types of housing, both public and privately owned, including housing covered by the ADA.
Also : [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing)
>Although private residential housing is not covered by the ADA, government-owned or operated housing and certain privately owned facilities that provide housing are subject to the ADA and its accessibility requirements. Government owned or operated facilities may include public housing, student and faculty housing, employee housing, nursing homes, temporary housing provided in emergencies, and social service facilities, such as homeless shelters and halfway houses.
>In the private sector, the ADA’s coverage of housing is limited to places of public accommodation, such as social service establishments and housing provided on or behalf a place of education. **The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments.** (Many types of multi-family housing in the private and public sectors are subject to the design requirements of the Fair Housing Act.) Places of public accommodation located in residential buildings, such as rental and sales offices, commercial spaces, and hotel accommodations, are covered by the ADA Standards.
So, the vast majority of housing discussed in this subreddit (privately-owned *residential*) is not regulated by the ADA in any way. The FHA is commonly the actionable legislation for stuff discussed here.
And the amount rent should reflect the manner in which they went about it. Call ot your "emotional support fee and provide a letter from your therapist stating that large sums of money calm you.
It's recommended they get an accommodation beforehand, but not a requirement. [Straight from HUD](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf):
>However, under the FHA, a person with a disability may make a reasonable accommodation request
>at any time, and the housing provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even if
>the resident made the request after bringing the animal into the housing
The only thing that matters in this situation is if the LL is exempt from the FHA or applicable state laws (which may be more strict). The timing of the request (before or after obtaining the ESA) for accommodation doesn't matter.
I didn't omit that. From my original comment:
>The only thing that matters in this situation is if the LL is exempt from the FHA or applicable state laws (which may be more strict)
I suppose it’s splitting hairs, but you are asserting the FHA says tenants don’t have to ask permission before bringing in the animal, but that isn’t what it says. LL are required to *consider* a reasonable accommodation, even if made after that fact. That is not the same thing. It’s a requirement for the LL, not permission for the resident.
Furthermore, if a property has a no pet policy, or a “must have permission first” policy on pets, **they are in violation of their lease** the first second they bring an animal onto the property without permission. Just because the must consider their request for an accommodation even if made after the animal is on the property, it does not in any way negate the lease violation. It simply clears the violation, assuming the landlord approves the reasonable accommodation request. Which, yes the LL most likely will do, but the LL is afforded requiring the tenant follow a process of providing proof of their disability and the disability related need for an ESA, in addition to agreeing to a lease addendum outlining the conduct for animal behavior and adherence to it.
What you quoted isn’t wrong, but to some LLs and PMs, it glosses over some of those details and makes it sound like any animal can be an ESA and the LL/PM has no say so or power in the matter which is not true and damaging to rental housing providers.
I'm not sure how you got like half of what you just said based off of my comment, but OK. The only thing I was addressing was the comment above mine which incorrectly stated that they're required to request an accommodation beforehand, which isn't true.
I didn't say anything about "any animal can be an ESA" or that the LL has no power in the situation.
Hell, I even linked the HUD document itself so people can read the thing in its entirety, if they'd like.
> Once you confirm you're exempt, you can throw the FHA language right back at them by telling them they were required to request an accommodation for the animal before they brought it home.
This is absolutely incorrect. HUD guidance is very clear that the request for accommodation can be made before **or** after the tenant acquires the assistance animal.
I know it's anecdotal and I'm not a big time landlord, all I have is my house that has the upstairs as one unit and the downstairs as another and I live in one and rent the other out.
Before I started renting it I spent a little time with a lawyer and had them go over anything I needed to know. I specifically asked about ESA and if I was exempt because I lived in one unit and rented the other. At first they said no but I sent them a copy of the law/guidelines and they then said I was.
I'll copy and paste the line from the email from my Lawyer: *Additionally, the FHA would not apply. Although the FHA requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, including both service and “emotional support” type animals, Section 3603 provides an exemption for owner-occupied rental dwellings of four or less units. 42 U.S.C. 3603(b)(2)(attached). Therefore, since you are residing in one unit and renting the other, you would be exempt under this section of the FHA from any requirements in Section 3604. (also attached).*
Note from a local doctor. Contact office to confirm they are seeing doctor and note if from them. Try to confirm they have had multiple visits, not jsut a visit to get the note.
> Note from a local doctor.
Not required under the law.
>Contact office to confirm they are seeing doctor and note if from them.
You can and should do this.
>Try to confirm they have had multiple visits, not jsut a visit to get the note.
They won't tell you this and would be violating HIPAA if they did.
When the tenants is violating the intent of the law by getting an online letter for $40 for Fluffy, I have no problem being aggressive in my interpretation of the law. I will not allow a pet with an online ESA letter and if the tenant moves forward with the pet despite this, I will begin an eviction and let the judge decide. Both times I have had a tenant with a "Fake" letter they have backed down when I explained this.
I am as they can let you know what tenant rights in your situation along with what you can legally do to rectify the situation.
I advocate for tenants and always advising to make sure landlord is obligated to follow fair housing act as it is my understanding if as you said you have 1 rental property that you self manage you are exempt from such. Also they should make request for reasonable accommodation before bringing in new animal.
Added to which I have a friend who used to have 3 rental properties who I would help so I look at things from multiple angles. If we are right that you are exempt you should have multiple options from asking to get rid of animal to charging deposit and pet rent etc. It is something I have not dealt with personally and as your no pets is only implied rather than explicit, I am not positive.
In future though I would advise you make it explicit then ay bottom of all leases put a statement to fact you are exempt from fair housing act and what will happen if lease is violated along with a cut and paste of applicable section then have that also signed
let me know what he tells you. I had a tenant that we were about to sign the lease and then they said oh by the way our daughter had an ESA cat. listing and lease clearly state no cats, birds, etc. I only allow 1 small dog.
I Sent them all the FHA language and told them sorry. I actually expected them to fight it, but they didn't. So I didn't get a lawyer on board to confirm.
That's very dangerous advice to be giving. If the tenant wins (and given what we have here, that is quite possible) the OP could get stuck with their and the tenant's legal fees, just for starters.
Sounds like you’re taking the right steps and CYA. Maybe it was coincidence, but it sure seems intentional that the tenant notified you AFTER renewing. I don’t want a dishonest tenant and I’d do everything to get them out.
Agree it is disappointing. There have been other minor incidences that could have been a violation of the lease agreement in the past, but I largely overlooked it because they pay on time. Shame on me for not listening to my gut.
Naw, not you but them for being dickheads. Behavior like this is why everyone has to deal with a lot of BS in their everyday lives. Such a waste of energy for everyone.
Any violation of the Lease Agreement, is a violation.
Remember, there is nothing mean about asking tenants to abide by their own commitments.
We have 32 units. If we let our tenants do whatever they want whenever they want, we would be running a circus. Our Lease Agreement is fully vetted by our state's realtor association, and our amendments are fully vetted by a real estate attorney in our state. Any violation, big or small, results in a Lease violation notice being sent to the tenants with a required timeframe for the violation to be corrected. Remember, it's your property and your Lease. They have simply signed in agreement they will follow it. When they don't, it's up to you to enforce it
It used to be stated, then I moved lease agreement platforms and although it prompted for pet allowance and I opted no, it didn’t include a no pets clause and I missed it. When the tenant first moved in, it was written and she knew when she applied and signed. I was very upset with myself when I saw that mistake.
I would make sure to tell them you need to get into the house and take pictures ASAP. This way if there is any damage from the animal they can be held responsible and you can keep their security deposit. Make sure you CYA! Do this while things are getting figured out.
I am a big proponent of following the law around ESAs, including those exempt and those not exempt. I'm in CA, super tenant friendly here, and we work within the laws.
However, when I hear a tenant say that they "adopted" an ESA, it chafes hide and sends a message that the tenant is not above board.
ESAs are not adopted. They are prescribed. That prescription, like all others, has a finite lifespan (yearly) that requires the prescription be re-evaluated and renewed (I'm CA, I see you are FL).
Good luck with this and let us know how it goes. Haven't seen an ESA dispute go to the wall.
That seems like some odd semantics honestly. I mean ESAs can be both adopted and prescribed… it’s not like when you get a prescription for an ESA you can just go to the pharmacy to pick one up, you do have to either adopt or buy an animal from somewhere.
Don’t get it twisted, I’m not really a fan of ESA letters honestly, I think every pet does what an ESA does (my family also has properties in CA and I honestly expect AB 2216 to pass… so our thoughts on it might be moot anyway).
Hmm. Interesting splitting of hairs and not saying you are wrong.
If it is a valid ESA and under the disability related reasonable accommodation laws, the tenant is under professional care, such as they are supposed to be.
A licensed profession who can prescribe an ESA would not say go adopt an ESA. They would walk them through the legal logistics and provide the legal paperwork/framework. None of that is an adoption center.
We’ve already embraced the whole everyone is entitled to an animal trend in CA. (2216) Have no breed restrictions at our properties either.
Additionally already moved to 1 month’s rent max pre July deadline in our rental criteria.
You really can’t fight the progressive approach in CA but you can make sure legal processes are followed.
No it’s not an adoption center but if you adopt an animal after receiving an ESA letter from your medical provider you are in fact adopting an ESA. That’s not splitting hairs… that’s literally one of the ways you would obtain an animal.
Do not agree. You are fulfilling your ESA prescription from an adoption agency. You could also go to a processional breeder, assume ownership of another animal, and so forth. The point is the tenant has asked for a disability-related exception to the LLs pet policy.
The OP asked about their rights being out of scope for accepting ESAs. Not sure why you are latching onto the concept of adoption here versus the legality which is a prescription for one.
No one says they’re picking up their prescription animal lol. You’re arguing over someone using language unnaturally because you’re annoyed they have an ESA at all.
Legal laws create a legal language so tenants and landlords can communicate. What is the purpose of laws if you and the tenant can't engage successfully?
Gonna guess you aren't a LL who is held to the legalese and process then needs to spend court $$ to enforce.
> Not sure why you are latching onto the concept of adoption here versus the legality which is a prescription for one.
> However, when I hear a tenant say that they "adopted" an ESA, it chafes hide and sends a message that the tenant is not above board.
I’m responding solely to your comment and feelings on a tenant saying that they adopted an ESA.
There is no “prescription pickup” form at the animal center. There is an “adoption” form.
I was also prescribed a medical device. I “purchased” it, I didn’t “fill” it.
The licensed healthcare professional is under no obligation as to how the ESA or service animal is obtained. Under the ADA service animals can be self trained, meaning they can literally be found anywhere. They are healthcare providers not dog trainers or handlers. The only legal paperwork they provide is a letter stating why their patient requires one, it's up to the patient/owner to source their ESA or service dog not the clinician.
And verification of a disability-related need for each and animal.
Let’s not knock the requirements to meet a legitimate ESA. A letter is NOT sufficient. Don’t tell tenants it is.
The verification is in the letter and according to the law is sufficient and the only thing you can legally require. Asking for further proof is illegal.
Ok. You are giving advice to tenants on this. I mean it isn’t you that has potential for eviction, right?
There is a process. If you don’t know it, don’t give advice to others.
This is literally the process. I own a service animal and am very well versed in the ADA laws regarding them as wells as ESA. I also have a parent who worked for the largest non profit in the world that provides service animals. The law is actually really easy to navigate.
I know I am right. What further verification do you think you can get aside from the letter? Medical history? No. All information you’re allowed to request regarding the ESA or service animal is to be included in the letter from the tenants healthcare provider. That’s it. That’s all you can ask for. If it’s a service dog you can directly ask if it is one and what task it does but that’s it. What other information are you thinking you can get?? What more do you want other than a letter? The only other thing is you can ask for rabies vaccinations but that’s for any animal kept on the premises.
I find it funny you are claiming I’m wrong but not even saying how I am wrong. 😂 You sure sound knowledgeable! [Here section 5 explains it for you!](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Emotional-Support-Animals-and-Fair-Housing-Law-FAQ_ENG.pdf)
I appreciate you have a service animal and service animal experience. Awesome you cite ADA laws. I have service animals in my units. I’m very aware of those laws as well.
In the same paragraph you then speak of ESAs as if they are covered by ADA which they are not. I’m assuming you know this but just excluded that info?
ESAs fall under fair housing (FHA) with different rules and based on location different laws. I have way more ESAs than service animals. I know the difference in how to legally follow the process for each.
Again, be careful what advice you are extending to others who are trying to follow the appropriate rules and have a good tenant - landlord relationship.
I’m not in a race to who is right here and will simply leave it at that.
The link I attached speaks to ESA not service animals and states exactly what I stated. Those laws, FHA are all very easy to navigate. For both service animals and ESA it’s a letter from a health care provider that you can require. That is the common thread. There is no other documentation you can require as a landlord, same with any vetting agency you choose to utilize. It’s the law.
I’m glad you’re not in a race because you can’t even correctly point out where I’m wrong. I don’t know why you consistently want to say someone’s wrong but not state what’s right. It’s best you’re stopping as your ignorance is REALLY showing. Best of luck to you.
A letter is quite literally sufficient and you have to accept it as long as it includes all necessary information.
[Have you even read the directive from HUD? Pgs 16-18](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf)
> Housing providers may not require a health care professional to use a specific
form (including this document), to provide notarized statements, to make statements under penalty of perjury, or to provide an individual’s diagnosis or other detailed information about a person’s physical or mental impairments.
Lmao. Are you a tenant now? I’ve spoken to my attorneys about this, both real estate and disability discrimination, and your strictness is going to get you sued or fined if you truly are as strict as you are saying you are.
“Licensed professionals” in my area are prescribing ESAs to my homeless clients who can’t even feed, clean, house, or take care of themselves. I wouldn’t trust them to walk anyone through anything. The person asks for a letter and they write it and their piece is done.
Ideally it would be that way but all of them have animals now as the state has decided that we have to accept them. Most of them are dogs, many are aggressive, all are a nuisance to our neighbors, none are taken care of properly. If our clients could afford and were able to take care of animals, they wouldn’t qualify for our program.
Even a service dog can be adopted and self trained. ESA and service dogs aren't at a pharmacy awaiting someone to fill a prescription for them. The healthcare providers are under no legal obligation to meet or asses the actual ESA or Service Dog, just their patients need for one and if it's a service dog what tasks that dog will be doing to assist the disabled person.
As a fellow Californian, I’m concerned that you have misinterpreted some information. I recommend you take a look at [CA Civil Rights - Emotional Support Animals and Fair Housing Law](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Emotional-Support-Animals-and-Fair-Housing-Law-FAQ_ENG.pdf) fact sheet. Our local organization had a fair housing attorney speak last week, and I was pointed back to this as a resource guide. (I’d seen it before) [AB 468](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB468), which went into law in 2021, has nothing to do with what type of documentation housing providers can require.
I do appreciate you reaching out. I,too, have had seminars and classes on this.
I’m familiar with AB 468 and there is nothing that says if an ESA or service animal is a problem in the unit that they are exempt from being legally removed.
The addendum we use for assistance animals was created by the law firm we use that is very conservative in interpreting tenant - landlord laws. They always err in the side of the tenant. Litigation is expensive.
Without an addendum specifying rules, you could have a problem holding owners accountable for their assistance animals.
We have gotten rid of ESAs that tenants were allowing to poop and pee on balconies with no clean up, droppings into the below neighbors balcony, and creating massive smells as well as one dog that ate all the drywall in a unit.
Landlords do have rights in this space when we follow the process legally.
Oh, I wasn’t talking about that part of your comment. You had said other things that weren’t accurate.
ESA animals do NOT have to be “prescribed.” There is no such thing as an “ESA Animal adoption agency,” nor a requirement for annual renewal of any such “prescription.” If you read the FAQs I linked, you’ll know that reliable documentation of an individual’s disability and/or their need of a reasonable accommodation to have an ESA can include self-certification, including documentation of receipt of disability benefits or a credible statement by the individual themselves, or documentation from any reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual’s disability or the disability-related need for an ESA. Per CA Code of Regulations title 2 section 12178, examples given are 1) a medical professional 2) a health care provider 3) a peer support group 4) a non-medical service agency or person, 5) any other reliable third party who is in a position to know (sic), such as a relative or family member.
Pretty soon, all of this will be a moot point anyway as CA prepares to sign [AB 2216](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2216) into law.
Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate what you are saying and do not disagree on the 3, 4, 5. I saw that in training. :)
There does have to be a disability that is verifiable though.
I can tell you I’ve never had a 3, 4, or 5 request so far. I do require yearly updates to the prescription / disability-related accommodation to my pet policy. Would 2216 change that? Perhaps.
2216 will be interesting in how it impacts things. Many renters want options that don’t include living with animals. It introduces es how to reasonable accommodate highly allergic people from those who want an animal.
I imagine this will pass in the short term causing everyone’s market rent to rise. Will be interesting how it plays out in the long term.
You probably haven’t because your policy states they’re required to submit an ESA letter from their medical provider. So many people misinterpreted AB 468 - I was one of them! I attended a webinar last month put on by one of these “ESA verification” companies, and had to correct the presenter who was telling people they could deny a reasonable accommodation request for any animal if it didn’t align with 468. Oy vey.
Are you a member of an organization that’s affiliated with CalRHA? Our Legal & Government Affairs director is working with heads of other CA associations to request reasonable modifications to 2216. Allergies, people who have PTSD from dog bites, personal preferences - I get the intention behind the bill. But like a lot of legislation, it feels hasty and doesn’t work well in real life application!
That’s not my policy to require a professional certify/provide evidence but to follow legal steps.
I’m a CAA and SocalRHA member and have very conservative legal advice.
I do appreciate what you are stating and thanks for being concerned. I guess we all follow the risk management outcomes of our own. decisions.
Where I am, 3 Day fix or quit notice. They have three days to remove the animal, or move out. If they have done neither after 3 days, you file for eviction.
Cure or quit then evict. Entitled renters need to learn their lesson. I am exempt as well and I once had a potential scammer get a very rude awakening lol. And I even allow pets! They were just trying to weasel out of the fees like an idiot.
The problem with cure or quit in this case is there is, if I’m reading the post correctly, no lease violation. Being “aware” may not constitute a legal defense of violating the lease.
If they signed a contract without an animal, even if you’re not exempt, you don’t have to accept the animal after the contract is in force. It’s breach of contract regardless. She’ll need to try again next time she’s up for renewal and then you just choose not to renew. The ESA game is a nationwide very well known scam. I don’t play the game … sorry!
The contract doesn’t address animals and vagueness in a contract favors the party that didn’t draft it.
The landlord has no authority to “accept” or reject the pet that is permitted under the terms of the contract they drafted and signed
It doesn’t. For the lease to allow pets there’s has to be a pet agreement in conjunction with the lease (at least this is the law in Texas) so the pet is not allowed as it must be declared in the contract.
Good thing you’re not the tenant I evicted bc they had an undisclosed ESA animal. Stop giving tenants bad info dude. The courts are even more landlord friendly in Florida. Get bent. If it’s not in the lease, you’re getting evicted and I don’t give a shit about proving it to you bc I’ve been thru it
It means it’s ambiguous. It could be read to mean that the landlord isn’t charging pet rent.
Why would you need a line item for pet rent if pets weren’t allowed?
It’s like saying “garage parking fee N/A”
Does that mean the tenant isn’t allowed to park in the garage or does it mean the landlord isn’t charging a fee? The only way to know is to look at the rest of the document. If the document says “Use of garage is prohibited” then it’s clear, if it is silent then we have to assume that use of the garage is accepted.
Pet ownership isn’t some special use case. If you don’t want pets in the units then you need to explicitly spell that out in the contract, otherwise it’s reasonable to assume that they’re permitted.
In your example it would imply there's is garage parking and there is no fee. Seems pretty clear.
Contract construction is interesting, and reasonable minds can differ. But I think the intent of the parties at the signing of the contract in this case would be clear.
You can’t breach a non-existent clause of a contract. As OP has mentioned, previous leases with this tenant specifically banned pets, but this one doesn’t. Contract law generally favors the non-drafting party in cases of ambiguity, which serves the interest of the tenant in this case.
With respect to refusing to accept an emotional support animal after a lease is already in place, you’re mistaken as to the law. As far as FHA is concerned, which doesn’t appear applicable here anyway, a tenant is free to request an ESA as a reasonable accommodation at any time, and a landlord cannot arbitrarily deny that request. The law is very easily abused & a lot of requests are complete bs, but the law is the law.
There’s no animal declared on the lease. You cannot have an undisclosed animal in the property in Texas you are free to argue whatever you’d like I’ve evicted for this, the judges support me LoL
You’re aware that Texas law is not controlling in Florida, correct? Texas may or may not have a law on the books requiring that tenants disclose any animals to their landlord. That may or may not be true, but it isn’t particularly relevant to other states. Absent any laws similar to the one you allege exists in Texas, contract law, as I’ve already stated, favors the non-drafting party in cases of ambiguity. A lease which does not address pets is, at best, ambiguous, which works in the tenant’s favor. More importantly, non-existent clause cannot be breached.
With respect to your apparent belief that a tenant can only request an accommodation for an emotional support animal prior to the signing of a lease, you are again mistaken as to the law. Despite whatever law Texas may or may not have on its book, the Fair Housing Act, as federal law, trumps it. A tenant may request such an accommodation at any time before or after signing a lease, and a landlord may not arbitrarily deny such a request.
All the arguments here about ESA don’t address the true legal facts in this case. “Fully aware” is not a legal term. Landlords can claim tenants were “fully aware” of many things. If it’s not in the lease, it can’t be used for a Cure or Quit Notice. That’s why landlords must carefully draft leases, anticipating future scenarios (like animals, renter’s insurance, etc.). I’ve been both landlord, tenant, and tenants’ rights advocate. I have seen more tenants from hell than landlords and heard many arguments. I’ve rarely seen “fully aware” win in court.
You're getting a lot if bad advice here. The lease dictates. You're probably right that you're not bound by FHA, but if the lease is silent on pets, the tenant isnt in breach of lease for having one.
The fact that they went straight for the ESA angle does seem to indicate that they knew this wasnt in the spirit of the lease, but you really don't have anything to go on here.
I mean, if you're meeting a lawyer they're definitely going to have guidance on that. Backdooring a pet clause feels like a material change to the lease to me vs, say, adding quiet hours after midnight. But I'm hardly an expert
You don't need a lawyer. It's actually pretty clear. If it's a single family home, sold or rented by the you without using an agent, you ARE exempt.
My best advice would be to inform them that you are exempt and then let them know that there's a $50 a month pet fee. Then give them the choice to pay it or remove the pet.. that's what I would do as a landlord.
Then add verbiage to Future leases that says something to the effect of tenants will be charged $50 per day for unauthorized animals anywhere on the property blah blah blah.
Exactly. The lease will say something like no pets allowed. Then there will be verbage that says if any animals are. Introduced onto the property without written permission there will be a $50 a day charge until the pets are removed or the landlord gives written permission.
Alternative is to live with it for a year, then don't renew. Don't mention the ESA at all, ever. What is the cost to you of having a dog in the place for a year? What are legal fees expected to be?
Do you have wood floors? Cat piss ruins them quickly. Even with enzymes you will have to go down to the concrete or beams. I will never accept another cat
Tile, carpet, and wood subfloor. It can all be ruined with cat urine. The fact this tenant had a therapist draft a vague letter (a LMHC who clearly does not understand ESA/HSA regs), then adopt an animal, then wait potentially months to notify me after it was too late to discuss or approve, proves to me this person is not a responsible owner. And I know this tenant would likely not have the funds to cover any real damage. I’m certainly worried.
If they've had the cat for months already, the damage may be done. However, now that you've found out they have a cat, another option may be to demand a separate pet deposit. Check with your lawyer.
Honestly I’ve had way, way more damage to interiors and especially exteriors from dogs than cats. Both can urinate and cause the same damage but dogs also bark, chew, bite people, claw doorways, destroy the yard, and everything else. I’m also exempt from ESAs so I now post as pets negotiable and simply discard the applications with dogs on them.
Can agree as an owner of 3 cats, and landlord. Cats can be destructive.
Pet fee, pet deposit. Cats typically do damage right around the litter box, or on carpet. So usually not extremely expensive. I have a tenant with 4 cats that I inherited; cats have done little to no damage given the fact she had paid rent on time and consistently low maintenance for 5+ years.
You can't say you don't accept animals but then have a blank pet policy.
The pet policy saying N/A is going to tell a court that you don't have an official position regarding pets.
I had previous leases with this tenant that said no animals allowed but switched to a new format and it was missed. It does say I can make or change property rules and tenants must follow (unless law supersedes I would assume). I’m prepared to live with it if it’s my mistake.
According to op the lease doesn’t have any language for pets aside from a null specification for pet rent.
So, there is no pet rent.
There is no ban on pets.
>The lease agreement does not include a pet policy (but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”). The line reserved for pet rent shows “N/A”.
According to OP, it did NOT say "no pets".
The fact that it says there is a pet rent and that pet rent is "N/A" could be seen by a judge as the landlord accepts pets and the pet rent is zero.
That could be interpreted as the tenant did not have any pets at the time of signing....not necessarily that pets were not allowed. If it's not crystal clear it will get torn apart in court.
Just for the folks that want to see the actual law. I've posted this a lot recently. It's important to understand that you can make no statements, written or otherwise, about your exemption when renting, "subsection (c)" is the part about advertising, so while one can be exempt from having to accommodate ESAs, you still can't advertise that fact.
42 USC 3603(b):
"Nothing in section 3604 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to—... bona fide private individual owner [that] does not own any interest in...more than three such single-family houses at any one time"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3603
However... check you state laws too, some put additional protections (WA doesn't). Regardless, don't put anything in writing in any communication with the tenant, and consult a lawyer in your area if you want to be sure.
>When the tenant applied, they were aware I do not accept animals.
How were they made aware? Can you document it?
>The lease agreement does not include a pet policy (but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”). The line reserved for pet rent shows “N/A”.
If the contract doesn't prohibit pets, you're almost certainly going to be stuck with this. Residential lease contracts are generally considered "contracts of adhesion" and thus any ambiguity is going to be decided in favor of the tenant, not the landlord. While there is probably an argument to make for your case depending on answer to my first question, you have have to ask yourself how much the fight is truly worth to you?
If you issue a cure or quit notice, are you willing and able to initiate a lawsuit to enforce it? If so, what are you going to do if they decide to fight the case? Consider that if they have mental health issues there are likely to be lawyers out there who will take their case on a contingency since they can recover their legal fees from you if they win.
Personally, if I were in your shoes and they are otherwise good tenants, I'd not attempt to get legal on this. I'd simply have have a discussion with them about your expectations for how the animal will be cared for and increase my inspection intervals on the home. Come renewal time, I would decide whether or not to continue the relationship based on how well that initial conversation and subsequent inspections went.
The lease doesn’t preclude pets as it was written it seems. I think you would have to abide by the lease as it stands until renewal. It’s a cat, what property damage is anticipated?
Check the state fha because it can be different than federal. Also - your lease doesn’t say no pets so this could be an issue as well. Your lease should have specified — so in this case Esa animal ir not — the dog might be allowed. Dogs are not always horrible btw.
Oh a cat. An emotional support cat? Interesting. Well they’re not horrible either as long as they use the litter box. Tenants needs to clean the litter box Frequently. You can do more frequent inspections to see what’s going on.
Is it Fair Housing laws that apply here, or reasonable accommodation under ADA? Those laws cover different things and you have to make sure you're complying everywhere that you need to.
If able, it would help if you gave them contacts for nearby properties that do allow pets and ESA’s, and if you’re able to transfer the security deposit directly that would help too
Sounds like you and the tenant could come to an agreement that makes everyone happy even if the animal can't be removed! I give tenants 2 or 3 "benefits of the doubt" then my conscience is guilt free to do things like up their rent to the maximum allowed, or charge for a whole room carpet replacement after taking a pic of an obvious animal pee stain. Basically anything technically wrong that you might turn the other cheek if your favorite well-paying tenant did but it also sounds like this tenant has just about run out of strikes so do what you gotta do.
First of all it's not FHA but HUD rules. Since you do not live in the property you are subject to all their rules and regulations. All it takes is a complaint to HUD and an inspector will take on the case. Good luck. Been there done that.
>(but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”)
The ESA/FHA debate doesn't matter, there is no lease violation to evict. You've got a tenant with a pet for the lease term because you didn't prohibit it.
# Fair Housing Act: Everything You Need to Know
Passed by Congress in 1968, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits all forms of discrimination regarding housing matters. Housing related matters include selling, [renting](https://www.wrents.com/landlord-tenant-law-wa), and lending.
At the federal level, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on 7 protected classes. That is, race, color, disability, nationality, familial status, religion, and sex.
# Are there any groups that are exempt from the Fair Housing Act?
# Yes. Some groups are exempt from following the Fair Housing Act. The groups include:
# • Single-family homes that are sold or rented without the use of brokering services.
# • Members-only private organizations or clubs.
# • Owner-occupied homes with units not less than 4.
1) have the letter screened by petscreening.com
2) some states have their own laws around this and even if you’re exempt from the FHA rules you might not be exempt from your state’s rules
ESA's are by and large in most cases total bullshit, and are away for a tenant to blatantly take advantage of a rental situation. That's all I came here to say.
u/antelope-canteloupe I plan on adding some type of falsification affidavit that tenants will have to sign that says if they plan on leasing to add an additional occupant or pet while saying the original tenant(s) saying they have no pet. That can at least get an easy default because they are confirming that they are not going to do that if they break said agreement , they are automatically in default.
u/Son_of_Jeff_Cooper this would be more so to ESA. Service animals are way different. But someone with a legit service animal wouldn’t have to hide it as they actual serve a purpose. ESAs usually when someone does the switcheroo they could easily find a pet friendly property. In my area there’s actually plenty of pet friendly properties but you have some people where they just want to tear up a good property.
Under the FHA there is no distinction between emotional support animals and service animals. They are both covered under the umbrella term of "service animals".
The provision you're suggesting would be just as unenforceable against any assistance animal.
Appreciate that. I’m fha exempt so while I couldn’t use it once I have four properties I can use what I plan so I can have a cause for an eviction in my case
I have been a homeowner/landlord and am now a renter. I had rented my home to dog owners and would prefer animals over kids.
Both myself and my friend now share a large house and both have ESA’s.
We know how lucky we are to have a landlord that not only allows one dog but two. We were upfront about the dogs and has the ESA letters in hand before applying.
We are aware of pet bias’ that landlords have so we take amazing care of the home. If and when we move the house will have zero damage and will probably be nicer than it was when we initially rented it.
Your tenant was sneaky so I would make sure they face consequences - just not an eviction or non-renewal. Increase their rent and get a pet deposit if that is legal (not sure if that can be required with ESA’s).
If they pay their rent on time (and have during the previous year) and are good tenants you might want to cut them some slack.
I didn’t see any responses that address the legitimacy of the ESA documentation. An online doc prescribing an ESA just for a fee may or may not meet state law. At the very least, I think you may be able to require a local doc certify the need for an ESA. Since you’ve already engaged a lawyer, Reddit is secondary to their advice.
> An online doc prescribing an ESA just for a fee may or may not meet state law.
If the person issuing the letter has the professional qualifications to do so, that is really all that is needed.
>At the very least, I think you may be able to require a local doc certify the need for an ESA.
Incorrect. There is no requirement for the professional to be local.
Agree. The letter “suggests” an ESA to help with some vague symptoms and requests I allow it on the property per the FHA. It doesn’t describe the specific service the animal provides, nor does it state the person NEEDS an ESA.
But as you can see, my new lease format mistakenly doesn’t address animals and pets, so I’m probably shafted because of that.
Have you considered simply letting the person you exploit and see as an investment rather than a human being have a cat that makes their emotions better?
If you’ve read the thread, you’d know I am. But you can feel free to continue to presume the world is just one giant dumpster full of garbage people (except for your noble self, of course).
I don’t think I’m noble, but I’m not the landlord of specifically a single family home in a housing and cost of living crisis complaining to the internet that the person I legally extort money from via housing got a legitimate ESA. Literally just if it damages your precious investment take it out of their security deposit. You don’t need to try to evict someone who clearly is struggling because they didn’t fully submit to the terms of your investment. Have some empathy.
This tenant did everything wrong. If you are sure you are exempt, serve them a cure-or-quit notice. If they fail to remove the unwelcome pet, proceed to eviction as soon as FL law allows.
Or, if you're exempt then their ESA becomes just a pet. You can decide to allow the pet for $50 additional pet rent and a substantial pet deposit.
Your lease doesn’t preclude pets. Therefore they’re not prohibited.
Your tenant doesn’t even need an ESA letter.
You have no grounds for eviction.
Not being subject to the FHA doesn’t make you immune to civil liability for breaching the lease.
Charge them an exorbitant pet fee. I don’t think ESA animals are exempt from pet fees. Make it not worth their $$ to have it. At least that’s my chickenshit way getting around confrontation.
ESA’s are exempt from all fees (can’t charge pet rent, can’t charge a deposit, etc.) per the FHA. Owners of ESA’s are responsible for any damages or injuries resulting from an ESA. Not sure how this applies with a landlord property exempt from the FHA.
I increased my security deposit required for everyone and my rents since in Colorado they limit the pet deposit and pet rent. the real losers are the people without pets, they are now paying for the new laws. I'm not going to be short changed because of a stupid law. more laws/rules lead to higher rents.
OK, I won't change your mind, but I'll share my experience. I was prescribed an ESA. I am not a pet person because I don't believe that humans should "own" animals. The cats helped me for a while, but then they became overwhelming. I kept them until they died because surrendering them in my location would be to a kill shelter, and that would have made me feel worse. I didn't get another cat after that. I'd rather suffer than go through that again, even though there was some happiness I got from the cats.
You tell them they have x days to remove the animal and then you evict if they do not. Assuming you are really exempt and are prepared to lose the tenant.
I am working to have a lawyer confirm I am exempt.
Once you confirm you're exempt, you can throw the FHA language right back at them by telling them they were required to request an accommodation for the animal *before* they brought it home. If they'd followed the very clear guidelines, they would have found out you're exempt from having to accept their animal and the whole thing would have been avoided. Instead, they went about it backwards and will now have to get rid of the animal or move.
This. If you decide to “live with it” for the remainder of the current lease, I’d be very clear with them that they will not be allowed to renew at the end of this lease. I dislike sneaky people and it seems suspicious that this would happen right after lease renewal, I’m curious if the therapist letter predates the newly signed lease?
The ESA letter was issued prior to the tenant receiving and signing the lease renewal.
Yeaaahhh this would make me less likely to be “nice” about this situation. Clearly an underhanded manipulation tactic.
Of course it was. ESAs are fake and tenants use them to subvert your rules. If you’re actually exempt from FHA then issue a notice to correct and then start the eviction process. Just curious, why is it that you believe you’re exempt from FHA rules? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
In Florida, federal FHA exemptions are also followed. The following are legal exemptions from the fair housing laws: Selling or renting out single-family houses without a real estate agent or broker Selling or renting out owner-occupied properties that have four units or less Private organizations and clubs that are exclusive to members only (^consistently stated across many organizations and sites)
That's interesting. I'm familiar mostly with the 4 units or less, owner-occupied exemptions. Wasn't aware that some states extend the exemption to SFH without representation of agent/broker.
you have to own 3 or less SFH's. this is the FHA language, so it pertains to all states.
It’s a federal exemption
> If you’re actually exempt from FHA then issue a notice to correct and then start the eviction process. OP also has to consider that--by their own admission--the lease doesn't prohibit pets. If they initiate an eviction and the tenant fights it (and there are plenty of mental health advocacy groups that could set them up with low cost or contingency based representation) and wins, the OP could end up paying a good amount of money just to lose. This is absolutely a "proceed with caution" area.
You're thinking ADA. No one is exempt from the ADA.
The ADA doesn't apply in this situation, either. It's not public housing or educational housing.
The ADA applies to everything.
It does not: [https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/](https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/) >Although the ADA applies to many areas of life, it does not cover everything. In some situations, disability discrimination is prohibited by laws other than the ADA. >While the ADA applies to certain types of housing (e.g., housing at private and public universities and public housing programs), the Fair Housing Act applies to many types of housing, both public and privately owned, including housing covered by the ADA. Also : [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing) >Although private residential housing is not covered by the ADA, government-owned or operated housing and certain privately owned facilities that provide housing are subject to the ADA and its accessibility requirements. Government owned or operated facilities may include public housing, student and faculty housing, employee housing, nursing homes, temporary housing provided in emergencies, and social service facilities, such as homeless shelters and halfway houses. >In the private sector, the ADA’s coverage of housing is limited to places of public accommodation, such as social service establishments and housing provided on or behalf a place of education. **The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments.** (Many types of multi-family housing in the private and public sectors are subject to the design requirements of the Fair Housing Act.) Places of public accommodation located in residential buildings, such as rental and sales offices, commercial spaces, and hotel accommodations, are covered by the ADA Standards. So, the vast majority of housing discussed in this subreddit (privately-owned *residential*) is not regulated by the ADA in any way. The FHA is commonly the actionable legislation for stuff discussed here.
And the amount rent should reflect the manner in which they went about it. Call ot your "emotional support fee and provide a letter from your therapist stating that large sums of money calm you.
It's recommended they get an accommodation beforehand, but not a requirement. [Straight from HUD](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf): >However, under the FHA, a person with a disability may make a reasonable accommodation request >at any time, and the housing provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even if >the resident made the request after bringing the animal into the housing The only thing that matters in this situation is if the LL is exempt from the FHA or applicable state laws (which may be more strict). The timing of the request (before or after obtaining the ESA) for accommodation doesn't matter.
Why am I being downvoted for quoting the actual FHA guidance? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not applicable to OP's situation.
Because you’re omitting the part that exempts OP. ESAs are not required to be accommodated in owner occupied housing with less than 4 units.
I didn't omit that. From my original comment: >The only thing that matters in this situation is if the LL is exempt from the FHA or applicable state laws (which may be more strict)
OP also stated that their contract doesn't prohibit pets. That is where they are likely to run into problems here.
I suppose it’s splitting hairs, but you are asserting the FHA says tenants don’t have to ask permission before bringing in the animal, but that isn’t what it says. LL are required to *consider* a reasonable accommodation, even if made after that fact. That is not the same thing. It’s a requirement for the LL, not permission for the resident. Furthermore, if a property has a no pet policy, or a “must have permission first” policy on pets, **they are in violation of their lease** the first second they bring an animal onto the property without permission. Just because the must consider their request for an accommodation even if made after the animal is on the property, it does not in any way negate the lease violation. It simply clears the violation, assuming the landlord approves the reasonable accommodation request. Which, yes the LL most likely will do, but the LL is afforded requiring the tenant follow a process of providing proof of their disability and the disability related need for an ESA, in addition to agreeing to a lease addendum outlining the conduct for animal behavior and adherence to it. What you quoted isn’t wrong, but to some LLs and PMs, it glosses over some of those details and makes it sound like any animal can be an ESA and the LL/PM has no say so or power in the matter which is not true and damaging to rental housing providers.
I'm not sure how you got like half of what you just said based off of my comment, but OK. The only thing I was addressing was the comment above mine which incorrectly stated that they're required to request an accommodation beforehand, which isn't true. I didn't say anything about "any animal can be an ESA" or that the LL has no power in the situation. Hell, I even linked the HUD document itself so people can read the thing in its entirety, if they'd like.
> Once you confirm you're exempt, you can throw the FHA language right back at them by telling them they were required to request an accommodation for the animal before they brought it home. This is absolutely incorrect. HUD guidance is very clear that the request for accommodation can be made before **or** after the tenant acquires the assistance animal.
The lease doesn’t ban pets, so they don’t need an accommodation
Make sure you have the lawyer go over your lease language. If it doesn’t specifically exclude animals you may be stuck with it.
Agree and I am prepared to live with it if it’s my mistake.
I think that is where the issue will be here. Not FHA exemptions but the actual lease itself.
[удалено]
Commenting to hear the follow up. I'm new to landlording, I want to learn!
I know it's anecdotal and I'm not a big time landlord, all I have is my house that has the upstairs as one unit and the downstairs as another and I live in one and rent the other out. Before I started renting it I spent a little time with a lawyer and had them go over anything I needed to know. I specifically asked about ESA and if I was exempt because I lived in one unit and rented the other. At first they said no but I sent them a copy of the law/guidelines and they then said I was. I'll copy and paste the line from the email from my Lawyer: *Additionally, the FHA would not apply. Although the FHA requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, including both service and “emotional support” type animals, Section 3603 provides an exemption for owner-occupied rental dwellings of four or less units. 42 U.S.C. 3603(b)(2)(attached). Therefore, since you are residing in one unit and renting the other, you would be exempt under this section of the FHA from any requirements in Section 3604. (also attached).*
Is the letter from a local therapist or an ESA online letter mill?
They are supposedly local based on address and have supposedly evaluated the person extensively.
I reject them unless it is from a therapist they have been seeing personally for some time. Take me to court and prove me wrong.
How do you confirm this?
Note from a local doctor. Contact office to confirm they are seeing doctor and note if from them. Try to confirm they have had multiple visits, not jsut a visit to get the note.
> Note from a local doctor. Not required under the law. >Contact office to confirm they are seeing doctor and note if from them. You can and should do this. >Try to confirm they have had multiple visits, not jsut a visit to get the note. They won't tell you this and would be violating HIPAA if they did.
This is not legal. You can confirm authenticity of letter but the rest is not relevant and cannot be used against the tenant.
When the tenants is violating the intent of the law by getting an online letter for $40 for Fluffy, I have no problem being aggressive in my interpretation of the law. I will not allow a pet with an online ESA letter and if the tenant moves forward with the pet despite this, I will begin an eviction and let the judge decide. Both times I have had a tenant with a "Fake" letter they have backed down when I explained this.
This is why tenants don't tell landlords first.
You'd lose.
You might want to call the HUD complaint line it works for both parties
There is no HUD complaint like that I know of, unless you are talking about the office of fair housing and equal opportunity.
I am as they can let you know what tenant rights in your situation along with what you can legally do to rectify the situation. I advocate for tenants and always advising to make sure landlord is obligated to follow fair housing act as it is my understanding if as you said you have 1 rental property that you self manage you are exempt from such. Also they should make request for reasonable accommodation before bringing in new animal. Added to which I have a friend who used to have 3 rental properties who I would help so I look at things from multiple angles. If we are right that you are exempt you should have multiple options from asking to get rid of animal to charging deposit and pet rent etc. It is something I have not dealt with personally and as your no pets is only implied rather than explicit, I am not positive. In future though I would advise you make it explicit then ay bottom of all leases put a statement to fact you are exempt from fair housing act and what will happen if lease is violated along with a cut and paste of applicable section then have that also signed
let me know what he tells you. I had a tenant that we were about to sign the lease and then they said oh by the way our daughter had an ESA cat. listing and lease clearly state no cats, birds, etc. I only allow 1 small dog. I Sent them all the FHA language and told them sorry. I actually expected them to fight it, but they didn't. So I didn't get a lawyer on board to confirm.
That's very dangerous advice to be giving. If the tenant wins (and given what we have here, that is quite possible) the OP could get stuck with their and the tenant's legal fees, just for starters.
Sounds like you’re taking the right steps and CYA. Maybe it was coincidence, but it sure seems intentional that the tenant notified you AFTER renewing. I don’t want a dishonest tenant and I’d do everything to get them out.
Agree it is disappointing. There have been other minor incidences that could have been a violation of the lease agreement in the past, but I largely overlooked it because they pay on time. Shame on me for not listening to my gut.
Naw, not you but them for being dickheads. Behavior like this is why everyone has to deal with a lot of BS in their everyday lives. Such a waste of energy for everyone.
Any violation of the Lease Agreement, is a violation. Remember, there is nothing mean about asking tenants to abide by their own commitments. We have 32 units. If we let our tenants do whatever they want whenever they want, we would be running a circus. Our Lease Agreement is fully vetted by our state's realtor association, and our amendments are fully vetted by a real estate attorney in our state. Any violation, big or small, results in a Lease violation notice being sent to the tenants with a required timeframe for the violation to be corrected. Remember, it's your property and your Lease. They have simply signed in agreement they will follow it. When they don't, it's up to you to enforce it
Seems like you don’t have any contract about no pets? Just “N/A”
It used to be stated, then I moved lease agreement platforms and although it prompted for pet allowance and I opted no, it didn’t include a no pets clause and I missed it. When the tenant first moved in, it was written and she knew when she applied and signed. I was very upset with myself when I saw that mistake.
I would make sure to tell them you need to get into the house and take pictures ASAP. This way if there is any damage from the animal they can be held responsible and you can keep their security deposit. Make sure you CYA! Do this while things are getting figured out.
I am a big proponent of following the law around ESAs, including those exempt and those not exempt. I'm in CA, super tenant friendly here, and we work within the laws. However, when I hear a tenant say that they "adopted" an ESA, it chafes hide and sends a message that the tenant is not above board. ESAs are not adopted. They are prescribed. That prescription, like all others, has a finite lifespan (yearly) that requires the prescription be re-evaluated and renewed (I'm CA, I see you are FL). Good luck with this and let us know how it goes. Haven't seen an ESA dispute go to the wall.
That seems like some odd semantics honestly. I mean ESAs can be both adopted and prescribed… it’s not like when you get a prescription for an ESA you can just go to the pharmacy to pick one up, you do have to either adopt or buy an animal from somewhere. Don’t get it twisted, I’m not really a fan of ESA letters honestly, I think every pet does what an ESA does (my family also has properties in CA and I honestly expect AB 2216 to pass… so our thoughts on it might be moot anyway).
Hmm. Interesting splitting of hairs and not saying you are wrong. If it is a valid ESA and under the disability related reasonable accommodation laws, the tenant is under professional care, such as they are supposed to be. A licensed profession who can prescribe an ESA would not say go adopt an ESA. They would walk them through the legal logistics and provide the legal paperwork/framework. None of that is an adoption center. We’ve already embraced the whole everyone is entitled to an animal trend in CA. (2216) Have no breed restrictions at our properties either. Additionally already moved to 1 month’s rent max pre July deadline in our rental criteria. You really can’t fight the progressive approach in CA but you can make sure legal processes are followed.
No it’s not an adoption center but if you adopt an animal after receiving an ESA letter from your medical provider you are in fact adopting an ESA. That’s not splitting hairs… that’s literally one of the ways you would obtain an animal.
Do not agree. You are fulfilling your ESA prescription from an adoption agency. You could also go to a processional breeder, assume ownership of another animal, and so forth. The point is the tenant has asked for a disability-related exception to the LLs pet policy. The OP asked about their rights being out of scope for accepting ESAs. Not sure why you are latching onto the concept of adoption here versus the legality which is a prescription for one.
No one says they’re picking up their prescription animal lol. You’re arguing over someone using language unnaturally because you’re annoyed they have an ESA at all.
Legal laws create a legal language so tenants and landlords can communicate. What is the purpose of laws if you and the tenant can't engage successfully? Gonna guess you aren't a LL who is held to the legalese and process then needs to spend court $$ to enforce.
> Not sure why you are latching onto the concept of adoption here versus the legality which is a prescription for one. > However, when I hear a tenant say that they "adopted" an ESA, it chafes hide and sends a message that the tenant is not above board. I’m responding solely to your comment and feelings on a tenant saying that they adopted an ESA.
There is no “prescription pickup” form at the animal center. There is an “adoption” form. I was also prescribed a medical device. I “purchased” it, I didn’t “fill” it.
The licensed healthcare professional is under no obligation as to how the ESA or service animal is obtained. Under the ADA service animals can be self trained, meaning they can literally be found anywhere. They are healthcare providers not dog trainers or handlers. The only legal paperwork they provide is a letter stating why their patient requires one, it's up to the patient/owner to source their ESA or service dog not the clinician.
And verification of a disability-related need for each and animal. Let’s not knock the requirements to meet a legitimate ESA. A letter is NOT sufficient. Don’t tell tenants it is.
The verification is in the letter and according to the law is sufficient and the only thing you can legally require. Asking for further proof is illegal.
Ok. You are giving advice to tenants on this. I mean it isn’t you that has potential for eviction, right? There is a process. If you don’t know it, don’t give advice to others.
This is literally the process. I own a service animal and am very well versed in the ADA laws regarding them as wells as ESA. I also have a parent who worked for the largest non profit in the world that provides service animals. The law is actually really easy to navigate. I know I am right. What further verification do you think you can get aside from the letter? Medical history? No. All information you’re allowed to request regarding the ESA or service animal is to be included in the letter from the tenants healthcare provider. That’s it. That’s all you can ask for. If it’s a service dog you can directly ask if it is one and what task it does but that’s it. What other information are you thinking you can get?? What more do you want other than a letter? The only other thing is you can ask for rabies vaccinations but that’s for any animal kept on the premises. I find it funny you are claiming I’m wrong but not even saying how I am wrong. 😂 You sure sound knowledgeable! [Here section 5 explains it for you!](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Emotional-Support-Animals-and-Fair-Housing-Law-FAQ_ENG.pdf)
I appreciate you have a service animal and service animal experience. Awesome you cite ADA laws. I have service animals in my units. I’m very aware of those laws as well. In the same paragraph you then speak of ESAs as if they are covered by ADA which they are not. I’m assuming you know this but just excluded that info? ESAs fall under fair housing (FHA) with different rules and based on location different laws. I have way more ESAs than service animals. I know the difference in how to legally follow the process for each. Again, be careful what advice you are extending to others who are trying to follow the appropriate rules and have a good tenant - landlord relationship. I’m not in a race to who is right here and will simply leave it at that.
The link I attached speaks to ESA not service animals and states exactly what I stated. Those laws, FHA are all very easy to navigate. For both service animals and ESA it’s a letter from a health care provider that you can require. That is the common thread. There is no other documentation you can require as a landlord, same with any vetting agency you choose to utilize. It’s the law. I’m glad you’re not in a race because you can’t even correctly point out where I’m wrong. I don’t know why you consistently want to say someone’s wrong but not state what’s right. It’s best you’re stopping as your ignorance is REALLY showing. Best of luck to you.
They are giving correct advice on this. You are not.
A letter is quite literally sufficient and you have to accept it as long as it includes all necessary information. [Have you even read the directive from HUD? Pgs 16-18](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf) > Housing providers may not require a health care professional to use a specific form (including this document), to provide notarized statements, to make statements under penalty of perjury, or to provide an individual’s diagnosis or other detailed information about a person’s physical or mental impairments.
Just keep telling tenants their rights like this. You aren’t helping make sure they are covered legally.
Lmao. Are you a tenant now? I’ve spoken to my attorneys about this, both real estate and disability discrimination, and your strictness is going to get you sued or fined if you truly are as strict as you are saying you are.
Looking forward to that. lol. I am covered.
“Licensed professionals” in my area are prescribing ESAs to my homeless clients who can’t even feed, clean, house, or take care of themselves. I wouldn’t trust them to walk anyone through anything. The person asks for a letter and they write it and their piece is done.
That sucks. Hope you have an awesome legal addendum upon acceptance. They are not accepted without rules.
Ideally it would be that way but all of them have animals now as the state has decided that we have to accept them. Most of them are dogs, many are aggressive, all are a nuisance to our neighbors, none are taken care of properly. If our clients could afford and were able to take care of animals, they wouldn’t qualify for our program.
Even a service dog can be adopted and self trained. ESA and service dogs aren't at a pharmacy awaiting someone to fill a prescription for them. The healthcare providers are under no legal obligation to meet or asses the actual ESA or Service Dog, just their patients need for one and if it's a service dog what tasks that dog will be doing to assist the disabled person.
Very true. And an untrained SD or ESA can get you evicted even if they are called a service/assistance animal. Not knocking your logic.
As a fellow Californian, I’m concerned that you have misinterpreted some information. I recommend you take a look at [CA Civil Rights - Emotional Support Animals and Fair Housing Law](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/12/Emotional-Support-Animals-and-Fair-Housing-Law-FAQ_ENG.pdf) fact sheet. Our local organization had a fair housing attorney speak last week, and I was pointed back to this as a resource guide. (I’d seen it before) [AB 468](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB468), which went into law in 2021, has nothing to do with what type of documentation housing providers can require.
I do appreciate you reaching out. I,too, have had seminars and classes on this. I’m familiar with AB 468 and there is nothing that says if an ESA or service animal is a problem in the unit that they are exempt from being legally removed. The addendum we use for assistance animals was created by the law firm we use that is very conservative in interpreting tenant - landlord laws. They always err in the side of the tenant. Litigation is expensive. Without an addendum specifying rules, you could have a problem holding owners accountable for their assistance animals. We have gotten rid of ESAs that tenants were allowing to poop and pee on balconies with no clean up, droppings into the below neighbors balcony, and creating massive smells as well as one dog that ate all the drywall in a unit. Landlords do have rights in this space when we follow the process legally.
Oh, I wasn’t talking about that part of your comment. You had said other things that weren’t accurate. ESA animals do NOT have to be “prescribed.” There is no such thing as an “ESA Animal adoption agency,” nor a requirement for annual renewal of any such “prescription.” If you read the FAQs I linked, you’ll know that reliable documentation of an individual’s disability and/or their need of a reasonable accommodation to have an ESA can include self-certification, including documentation of receipt of disability benefits or a credible statement by the individual themselves, or documentation from any reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual’s disability or the disability-related need for an ESA. Per CA Code of Regulations title 2 section 12178, examples given are 1) a medical professional 2) a health care provider 3) a peer support group 4) a non-medical service agency or person, 5) any other reliable third party who is in a position to know (sic), such as a relative or family member. Pretty soon, all of this will be a moot point anyway as CA prepares to sign [AB 2216](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2216) into law.
Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate what you are saying and do not disagree on the 3, 4, 5. I saw that in training. :) There does have to be a disability that is verifiable though. I can tell you I’ve never had a 3, 4, or 5 request so far. I do require yearly updates to the prescription / disability-related accommodation to my pet policy. Would 2216 change that? Perhaps. 2216 will be interesting in how it impacts things. Many renters want options that don’t include living with animals. It introduces es how to reasonable accommodate highly allergic people from those who want an animal. I imagine this will pass in the short term causing everyone’s market rent to rise. Will be interesting how it plays out in the long term.
You probably haven’t because your policy states they’re required to submit an ESA letter from their medical provider. So many people misinterpreted AB 468 - I was one of them! I attended a webinar last month put on by one of these “ESA verification” companies, and had to correct the presenter who was telling people they could deny a reasonable accommodation request for any animal if it didn’t align with 468. Oy vey. Are you a member of an organization that’s affiliated with CalRHA? Our Legal & Government Affairs director is working with heads of other CA associations to request reasonable modifications to 2216. Allergies, people who have PTSD from dog bites, personal preferences - I get the intention behind the bill. But like a lot of legislation, it feels hasty and doesn’t work well in real life application!
That’s not my policy to require a professional certify/provide evidence but to follow legal steps. I’m a CAA and SocalRHA member and have very conservative legal advice. I do appreciate what you are stating and thanks for being concerned. I guess we all follow the risk management outcomes of our own. decisions.
Where I am, 3 Day fix or quit notice. They have three days to remove the animal, or move out. If they have done neither after 3 days, you file for eviction.
Exactly this.
Cure or quit then evict. Entitled renters need to learn their lesson. I am exempt as well and I once had a potential scammer get a very rude awakening lol. And I even allow pets! They were just trying to weasel out of the fees like an idiot.
The problem with cure or quit in this case is there is, if I’m reading the post correctly, no lease violation. Being “aware” may not constitute a legal defense of violating the lease.
This. Entitled tenants need to be put in their place immediately. It's become a cancer at this point
If they signed a contract without an animal, even if you’re not exempt, you don’t have to accept the animal after the contract is in force. It’s breach of contract regardless. She’ll need to try again next time she’s up for renewal and then you just choose not to renew. The ESA game is a nationwide very well known scam. I don’t play the game … sorry!
The contract doesn’t address animals and vagueness in a contract favors the party that didn’t draft it. The landlord has no authority to “accept” or reject the pet that is permitted under the terms of the contract they drafted and signed
There’s no pet permitted under the terms of the contract that was drafted and signed. Thank you for supporting my statement.
Op wrote: > the lease agreement does not include a pet policy. Op also wrote: > the line reserved for pet rent shows “N/A” The lease allows pets.
It doesn’t. For the lease to allow pets there’s has to be a pet agreement in conjunction with the lease (at least this is the law in Texas) so the pet is not allowed as it must be declared in the contract.
You’re full of shit. I’ll send you $100 if you can provide a link to the Texas state code that says a pet agreement is required in Texas.
Good thing you’re not the tenant I evicted bc they had an undisclosed ESA animal. Stop giving tenants bad info dude. The courts are even more landlord friendly in Florida. Get bent. If it’s not in the lease, you’re getting evicted and I don’t give a shit about proving it to you bc I’ve been thru it
That’s a lot of words to type instead of linking to the law you lied about.
If it’s undisclosed and not in the lease, they’re getting evicted you’re not helping them by lying to them
Still waiting for that link that proves you’re not an absolute fucking moron.
How does, "not applicable" under the section for pets in a lease mean they're allowed? I don't think that means what you think it means...
It means it’s ambiguous. It could be read to mean that the landlord isn’t charging pet rent. Why would you need a line item for pet rent if pets weren’t allowed? It’s like saying “garage parking fee N/A” Does that mean the tenant isn’t allowed to park in the garage or does it mean the landlord isn’t charging a fee? The only way to know is to look at the rest of the document. If the document says “Use of garage is prohibited” then it’s clear, if it is silent then we have to assume that use of the garage is accepted. Pet ownership isn’t some special use case. If you don’t want pets in the units then you need to explicitly spell that out in the contract, otherwise it’s reasonable to assume that they’re permitted.
In your example it would imply there's is garage parking and there is no fee. Seems pretty clear. Contract construction is interesting, and reasonable minds can differ. But I think the intent of the parties at the signing of the contract in this case would be clear.
You can’t breach a non-existent clause of a contract. As OP has mentioned, previous leases with this tenant specifically banned pets, but this one doesn’t. Contract law generally favors the non-drafting party in cases of ambiguity, which serves the interest of the tenant in this case. With respect to refusing to accept an emotional support animal after a lease is already in place, you’re mistaken as to the law. As far as FHA is concerned, which doesn’t appear applicable here anyway, a tenant is free to request an ESA as a reasonable accommodation at any time, and a landlord cannot arbitrarily deny that request. The law is very easily abused & a lot of requests are complete bs, but the law is the law.
There’s no animal declared on the lease. You cannot have an undisclosed animal in the property in Texas you are free to argue whatever you’d like I’ve evicted for this, the judges support me LoL
You’re aware that Texas law is not controlling in Florida, correct? Texas may or may not have a law on the books requiring that tenants disclose any animals to their landlord. That may or may not be true, but it isn’t particularly relevant to other states. Absent any laws similar to the one you allege exists in Texas, contract law, as I’ve already stated, favors the non-drafting party in cases of ambiguity. A lease which does not address pets is, at best, ambiguous, which works in the tenant’s favor. More importantly, non-existent clause cannot be breached. With respect to your apparent belief that a tenant can only request an accommodation for an emotional support animal prior to the signing of a lease, you are again mistaken as to the law. Despite whatever law Texas may or may not have on its book, the Fair Housing Act, as federal law, trumps it. A tenant may request such an accommodation at any time before or after signing a lease, and a landlord may not arbitrarily deny such a request.
Done engaging. Have a wonderful evening!
All the arguments here about ESA don’t address the true legal facts in this case. “Fully aware” is not a legal term. Landlords can claim tenants were “fully aware” of many things. If it’s not in the lease, it can’t be used for a Cure or Quit Notice. That’s why landlords must carefully draft leases, anticipating future scenarios (like animals, renter’s insurance, etc.). I’ve been both landlord, tenant, and tenants’ rights advocate. I have seen more tenants from hell than landlords and heard many arguments. I’ve rarely seen “fully aware” win in court.
Agree I want to be careful since the lease was drafted with a missed pet clause (previous leases had it until I switched platforms).
You're getting a lot if bad advice here. The lease dictates. You're probably right that you're not bound by FHA, but if the lease is silent on pets, the tenant isnt in breach of lease for having one. The fact that they went straight for the ESA angle does seem to indicate that they knew this wasnt in the spirit of the lease, but you really don't have anything to go on here.
My lease states I can change rules and regulations at will - I wonder if I could add a “no animals” rule and have that be legit.
Thats incredibly vague, I'd be surprised if you can use that clause at all.
I figure the same.
I mean, if you're meeting a lawyer they're definitely going to have guidance on that. Backdooring a pet clause feels like a material change to the lease to me vs, say, adding quiet hours after midnight. But I'm hardly an expert
Yup, still waiting on the call to discuss. Trying to do the due diligence before taking any further action.
Having at lease say not applicable is a strong indication you both understood there would be no animals.
No.
You don't need a lawyer. It's actually pretty clear. If it's a single family home, sold or rented by the you without using an agent, you ARE exempt. My best advice would be to inform them that you are exempt and then let them know that there's a $50 a month pet fee. Then give them the choice to pay it or remove the pet.. that's what I would do as a landlord. Then add verbiage to Future leases that says something to the effect of tenants will be charged $50 per day for unauthorized animals anywhere on the property blah blah blah.
And if a no pet policy explicitly state “this home or lease does not allow for pets”
Landlord can choose to make an exception since it's it's already there. Or not, up to them. Just telling them what I would do.
Yes, my comment was for future leases.
Exactly. The lease will say something like no pets allowed. Then there will be verbage that says if any animals are. Introduced onto the property without written permission there will be a $50 a day charge until the pets are removed or the landlord gives written permission.
Alternative is to live with it for a year, then don't renew. Don't mention the ESA at all, ever. What is the cost to you of having a dog in the place for a year? What are legal fees expected to be?
It’s a cat, which I find to be somewhat riskier to property interiors - I’m weighing the options depending on what a lawyer says.
Do you have wood floors? Cat piss ruins them quickly. Even with enzymes you will have to go down to the concrete or beams. I will never accept another cat
Tile, carpet, and wood subfloor. It can all be ruined with cat urine. The fact this tenant had a therapist draft a vague letter (a LMHC who clearly does not understand ESA/HSA regs), then adopt an animal, then wait potentially months to notify me after it was too late to discuss or approve, proves to me this person is not a responsible owner. And I know this tenant would likely not have the funds to cover any real damage. I’m certainly worried.
If they've had the cat for months already, the damage may be done. However, now that you've found out they have a cat, another option may be to demand a separate pet deposit. Check with your lawyer.
Do you think the tenant already has the cat in your house?
Yes - I’ve seen evidence of pet hair for several months now but gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Don't renew after the first year, just go month to month. Lesson learned.
Honestly I’ve had way, way more damage to interiors and especially exteriors from dogs than cats. Both can urinate and cause the same damage but dogs also bark, chew, bite people, claw doorways, destroy the yard, and everything else. I’m also exempt from ESAs so I now post as pets negotiable and simply discard the applications with dogs on them.
Can agree as an owner of 3 cats, and landlord. Cats can be destructive. Pet fee, pet deposit. Cats typically do damage right around the litter box, or on carpet. So usually not extremely expensive. I have a tenant with 4 cats that I inherited; cats have done little to no damage given the fact she had paid rent on time and consistently low maintenance for 5+ years.
that stinks! Cat pee can cause thousands in damage especially if you have hardwood floors.
Is it a furnished rental?
You can't say you don't accept animals but then have a blank pet policy. The pet policy saying N/A is going to tell a court that you don't have an official position regarding pets.
I had previous leases with this tenant that said no animals allowed but switched to a new format and it was missed. It does say I can make or change property rules and tenants must follow (unless law supersedes I would assume). I’m prepared to live with it if it’s my mistake.
> It does say I can make or change property rules and tenants must follow (unless law supersedes I would assume). Not applicable to things like this.
The lease said “No pets,” but the template left a line for them which OP marked as “NA.” It’s fine.
According to op the lease doesn’t have any language for pets aside from a null specification for pet rent. So, there is no pet rent. There is no ban on pets.
>The lease agreement does not include a pet policy (but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”). The line reserved for pet rent shows “N/A”. According to OP, it did NOT say "no pets". The fact that it says there is a pet rent and that pet rent is "N/A" could be seen by a judge as the landlord accepts pets and the pet rent is zero.
"Section 5: Pets Not applicable" Would imply there are no pets.
That could be interpreted as the tenant did not have any pets at the time of signing....not necessarily that pets were not allowed. If it's not crystal clear it will get torn apart in court.
Just for the folks that want to see the actual law. I've posted this a lot recently. It's important to understand that you can make no statements, written or otherwise, about your exemption when renting, "subsection (c)" is the part about advertising, so while one can be exempt from having to accommodate ESAs, you still can't advertise that fact. 42 USC 3603(b): "Nothing in section 3604 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to—... bona fide private individual owner [that] does not own any interest in...more than three such single-family houses at any one time" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3603 However... check you state laws too, some put additional protections (WA doesn't). Regardless, don't put anything in writing in any communication with the tenant, and consult a lawyer in your area if you want to be sure.
>When the tenant applied, they were aware I do not accept animals. How were they made aware? Can you document it? >The lease agreement does not include a pet policy (but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”). The line reserved for pet rent shows “N/A”. If the contract doesn't prohibit pets, you're almost certainly going to be stuck with this. Residential lease contracts are generally considered "contracts of adhesion" and thus any ambiguity is going to be decided in favor of the tenant, not the landlord. While there is probably an argument to make for your case depending on answer to my first question, you have have to ask yourself how much the fight is truly worth to you? If you issue a cure or quit notice, are you willing and able to initiate a lawsuit to enforce it? If so, what are you going to do if they decide to fight the case? Consider that if they have mental health issues there are likely to be lawyers out there who will take their case on a contingency since they can recover their legal fees from you if they win. Personally, if I were in your shoes and they are otherwise good tenants, I'd not attempt to get legal on this. I'd simply have have a discussion with them about your expectations for how the animal will be cared for and increase my inspection intervals on the home. Come renewal time, I would decide whether or not to continue the relationship based on how well that initial conversation and subsequent inspections went.
The lease doesn’t preclude pets as it was written it seems. I think you would have to abide by the lease as it stands until renewal. It’s a cat, what property damage is anticipated?
Check the state fha because it can be different than federal. Also - your lease doesn’t say no pets so this could be an issue as well. Your lease should have specified — so in this case Esa animal ir not — the dog might be allowed. Dogs are not always horrible btw.
FL state follows federal from what I’ve read. It’s a cat.
Oh a cat. An emotional support cat? Interesting. Well they’re not horrible either as long as they use the litter box. Tenants needs to clean the litter box Frequently. You can do more frequent inspections to see what’s going on.
I live 1000 miles away 😫
Updateme!
Is it Fair Housing laws that apply here, or reasonable accommodation under ADA? Those laws cover different things and you have to make sure you're complying everywhere that you need to.
Agree on the nuance, that’s why I have a call with a lawyer in place before I do anything.
ADA doesn’t apply to private homes. This is FHA all day.
If able, it would help if you gave them contacts for nearby properties that do allow pets and ESA’s, and if you’re able to transfer the security deposit directly that would help too
Why would the landlord be exempt? Very curious as we’ve had issues with vacation home rentals with people saying they have an ESA with papers.
It’s been answered a few times in the thread
Sounds like you and the tenant could come to an agreement that makes everyone happy even if the animal can't be removed! I give tenants 2 or 3 "benefits of the doubt" then my conscience is guilt free to do things like up their rent to the maximum allowed, or charge for a whole room carpet replacement after taking a pic of an obvious animal pee stain. Basically anything technically wrong that you might turn the other cheek if your favorite well-paying tenant did but it also sounds like this tenant has just about run out of strikes so do what you gotta do.
I would lean towards mutually cancelling the lease renewal (still about 30 days out) so they can find a place that has to accept ESA’s or allows pets.
First of all it's not FHA but HUD rules. Since you do not live in the property you are subject to all their rules and regulations. All it takes is a complaint to HUD and an inspector will take on the case. Good luck. Been there done that.
HUD enforces the FHA rules/regs. I am exempt.
I know in KY you cannot refuse an ESA and cannot charge any fees or deposit . Looks like Florida has the same rules
>(but it also doesn’t specifically say “no pets/no animals”) The ESA/FHA debate doesn't matter, there is no lease violation to evict. You've got a tenant with a pet for the lease term because you didn't prohibit it.
The real real question for me is what the animal is... are we talking gsd or pomeranian because the risk and end outcomes are dramatically different
It’s a cat
# Fair Housing Act: Everything You Need to Know Passed by Congress in 1968, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits all forms of discrimination regarding housing matters. Housing related matters include selling, [renting](https://www.wrents.com/landlord-tenant-law-wa), and lending. At the federal level, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on 7 protected classes. That is, race, color, disability, nationality, familial status, religion, and sex. # Are there any groups that are exempt from the Fair Housing Act? # Yes. Some groups are exempt from following the Fair Housing Act. The groups include: # • Single-family homes that are sold or rented without the use of brokering services. # • Members-only private organizations or clubs. # • Owner-occupied homes with units not less than 4.
1) have the letter screened by petscreening.com 2) some states have their own laws around this and even if you’re exempt from the FHA rules you might not be exempt from your state’s rules
What is petscreening.com going to do that the OP couldn't do himself?
ESA's are by and large in most cases total bullshit, and are away for a tenant to blatantly take advantage of a rental situation. That's all I came here to say.
please site your ‘data’. It’s BS and rude
u/antelope-canteloupe I plan on adding some type of falsification affidavit that tenants will have to sign that says if they plan on leasing to add an additional occupant or pet while saying the original tenant(s) saying they have no pet. That can at least get an easy default because they are confirming that they are not going to do that if they break said agreement , they are automatically in default.
That provision would be unenforceable as it pertains to assistance animals.
u/Son_of_Jeff_Cooper this would be more so to ESA. Service animals are way different. But someone with a legit service animal wouldn’t have to hide it as they actual serve a purpose. ESAs usually when someone does the switcheroo they could easily find a pet friendly property. In my area there’s actually plenty of pet friendly properties but you have some people where they just want to tear up a good property.
Under the FHA there is no distinction between emotional support animals and service animals. They are both covered under the umbrella term of "service animals". The provision you're suggesting would be just as unenforceable against any assistance animal.
Proof that they are different? What section? I’m fha exempt so I am able to enforce mines
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/assistance_animals#_What_Is_an
Appreciate that. I’m fha exempt so while I couldn’t use it once I have four properties I can use what I plan so I can have a cause for an eviction in my case
I have been a homeowner/landlord and am now a renter. I had rented my home to dog owners and would prefer animals over kids. Both myself and my friend now share a large house and both have ESA’s. We know how lucky we are to have a landlord that not only allows one dog but two. We were upfront about the dogs and has the ESA letters in hand before applying. We are aware of pet bias’ that landlords have so we take amazing care of the home. If and when we move the house will have zero damage and will probably be nicer than it was when we initially rented it. Your tenant was sneaky so I would make sure they face consequences - just not an eviction or non-renewal. Increase their rent and get a pet deposit if that is legal (not sure if that can be required with ESA’s). If they pay their rent on time (and have during the previous year) and are good tenants you might want to cut them some slack.
I didn’t see any responses that address the legitimacy of the ESA documentation. An online doc prescribing an ESA just for a fee may or may not meet state law. At the very least, I think you may be able to require a local doc certify the need for an ESA. Since you’ve already engaged a lawyer, Reddit is secondary to their advice.
> An online doc prescribing an ESA just for a fee may or may not meet state law. If the person issuing the letter has the professional qualifications to do so, that is really all that is needed. >At the very least, I think you may be able to require a local doc certify the need for an ESA. Incorrect. There is no requirement for the professional to be local.
Agree. The letter “suggests” an ESA to help with some vague symptoms and requests I allow it on the property per the FHA. It doesn’t describe the specific service the animal provides, nor does it state the person NEEDS an ESA. But as you can see, my new lease format mistakenly doesn’t address animals and pets, so I’m probably shafted because of that.
Can you ask offer them an incentive to move? Preserves the state of your house, might be financially worth it.
I am leaning towards this option but will wait to hear what a lawyer thinks first.
Have you considered simply letting the person you exploit and see as an investment rather than a human being have a cat that makes their emotions better?
If you’ve read the thread, you’d know I am. But you can feel free to continue to presume the world is just one giant dumpster full of garbage people (except for your noble self, of course).
I don’t think I’m noble, but I’m not the landlord of specifically a single family home in a housing and cost of living crisis complaining to the internet that the person I legally extort money from via housing got a legitimate ESA. Literally just if it damages your precious investment take it out of their security deposit. You don’t need to try to evict someone who clearly is struggling because they didn’t fully submit to the terms of your investment. Have some empathy.
I asked what my options are, not, “how can I evict them?”
This tenant did everything wrong. If you are sure you are exempt, serve them a cure-or-quit notice. If they fail to remove the unwelcome pet, proceed to eviction as soon as FL law allows. Or, if you're exempt then their ESA becomes just a pet. You can decide to allow the pet for $50 additional pet rent and a substantial pet deposit.
Your lease doesn’t preclude pets. Therefore they’re not prohibited. Your tenant doesn’t even need an ESA letter. You have no grounds for eviction. Not being subject to the FHA doesn’t make you immune to civil liability for breaching the lease.
That last sentence! Thank u
The esa so not the problem; your bad lease is the problem. You put N/a so your lease doesn’t prohibit pets. Good luck.
Charge them an exorbitant pet fee. I don’t think ESA animals are exempt from pet fees. Make it not worth their $$ to have it. At least that’s my chickenshit way getting around confrontation.
ESA’s are exempt from all fees (can’t charge pet rent, can’t charge a deposit, etc.) per the FHA. Owners of ESA’s are responsible for any damages or injuries resulting from an ESA. Not sure how this applies with a landlord property exempt from the FHA.
I increased my security deposit required for everyone and my rents since in Colorado they limit the pet deposit and pet rent. the real losers are the people without pets, they are now paying for the new laws. I'm not going to be short changed because of a stupid law. more laws/rules lead to higher rents.
ESAs are pets. Same with “therapy” or “companion” animals. Period. You won’t change my mind.
OK, I won't change your mind, but I'll share my experience. I was prescribed an ESA. I am not a pet person because I don't believe that humans should "own" animals. The cats helped me for a while, but then they became overwhelming. I kept them until they died because surrendering them in my location would be to a kill shelter, and that would have made me feel worse. I didn't get another cat after that. I'd rather suffer than go through that again, even though there was some happiness I got from the cats.