landlord sued over animal policy - YorkieTalk.com Forums

romeos mommy · 10-11-2006, 10:50 PM

interesting article. What do you think?
http://www.allaroundcleveland.com/si...id=21849&rfi=6

AllyKenyon · 10-11-2006, 11:42 PM

hmmmm...i cant really decide what i think about that article...i think he should not be fined i guess

MeganS · 10-11-2006, 11:50 PM

hmmm. I dunno. I think the cost of the fine is rather over the top. I also feel that the "testers" hadn't given him enough information for him to be able to decide fairly. Maybe he should have been confronted about it, but I think fining him like that was just rediculous.

sweetr72 · 10-12-2006, 12:09 AM

Arent there more important things in the country these people could do?? I feel for the landlord...he should have that right as the owner of a building to do as he wants and not be tricked like that...he sounds like a decent man, worrying about childrens safetly in his building...feeling sorry for the man who supposedly lost his wife and child...why pick on people?? Why not help them out?? Its like everything pure in this world has to be tainted somehow by someone!! There are lots of bad guys to fight out in the world with all the wars going on and the sickos lurking in the streets..why go after a perfectly nice person?? I for one respect his decisions and hate that he was 'tested' like that..make me want to test the testers lol..Sorry I had a crappy day lol...

Dawn

SnowWa · 10-12-2006, 02:25 AM

As much as we all of us love our little guys (and other pets) --- how many of us - if we had rentals - would want rent to people with pets. What if we did rent to people with pets - and most of the time ended up with more damage than their deposits could cover???

How about the thousands of posts here about our puppies eating drywall - peeing on carpets - ruining carpets - and doing other damage, etc. (And we have "very little dogs.")

What about larger pets - more damage! - I have seen many yards totally ruined by large dogs having to be fenced in....

If your pets damage your own house and your own yard - that's fair..... but, it's not right to ruin other people's property.

******* I am on the landlord's side..totally - 100%

He wasn't against renting to handicapped or mentally ill persons - he just didn't want to rent to people with pets - and he said he certainly would have rented to a person with a seeing eye dog etc.

***I remember for years (in California) having a hard time finding places that would accept pets.... and there was a reason - most of the ones that did accept pets - weren't very nice.

*** Don't people have anything better to do than go around and trick and lie to people and entrap them - and then sue them.... shame shame shame!!!

I live in a very nice condo area (duplexes - 3000 sq feet). Two of these condos were rented for short periods of time to people with dogs - and the carpets were ruined in both of these houses. There was probably other damage also - that I'm not aware of. But - these condos are new and the ruined carpets should have lasted for another 10 or 15 years......

I'm sure the owners paid 95% of the replacement cost for these carpets and any other damage.

Carol Jean

MyTrixie143 · 10-12-2006, 03:08 AM

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one side, I completely feel for the landlord and I think it was really unfair what they did to him and he should not be fined. I completely understand why he had a no pets policy and why many other landlords have the same rule.

On the otherhand, there is a no win situation for renters and landlords. It is hard to find a place to rent that allows animals. That is because people abuse the priveladge and their pets end up destroying or doing alot of damage to the apartments. Yet for those of us who take good care of our pets and the place we are renting, it makes it hard for us to get a place to rent because of the few people who let their pets do damage to the place which ruins are chances of being allowed to have pets and rent. How can a landlord determine whether you will be an excellent renter who takes care of the place and your pets from those who don't??

I use to live in a housing complex, very nice houses, all brand new. When we were going through the process to rent the place they did not allow animals, especially no dogs. I asked them to make an exception as I had my cocker who I have had for many years and there was no way I could part with her. So they did make an exception and even changed their rule to where you were allowed one dog 25 pounds and under, that was the weight of my cocker. Well we took very good care of the place of course with no damages or anything, you woulden't have known there was ever a dog there. Our landlord even fell in love with my cocker, most people do. When we moved, we got all of our deposit back and very good compliments and references stating how well we took care of the place and our pets. They even said they would be more than happy to have us back if we ever wanted to move back.
However, the story was completely different with the house next to us. They had a dog too. But they did not take care of the place and let the dog ruin it. When they moved out, the landlord found poop and stains everywhere, carpet was worn from frequent digging in certain places, woodwork was chewed and some drywall was chewed as well.

So, there was two houses beside each other that both had dogs. One house was left in perfect condition and the other was ruined by a dog and cost them alot of money for the repairs. There was no way the landlord would have been able to know that these people would do this. Unless you have good references where you rented before and owned a pet, the landlord is taking a chance by letting you have a pet. So I understand the landlord's view point but because of people who have dogs who neglect the place they are renting, they make it harder for us responsible dog owners to be able to rent. It is all really unfair. Why can't everyone who has a dog that rents take care of the place?!?

Sorry, this is longer than I thought. I just had to express my opinion on this no win situation.

jjl720 · 10-12-2006, 03:44 AM

these testers used entrapment. If there is a medical need, it should be given in writing by a DR. Otherwise we all could say we have the need for pets. As an owner of investment property and obviously a pet lover, I still do not rent to pet owners because have seen first hand the damage irresponsible people allow their pets to do. After all, it is my home they are renting. They have nothing on the line but rent. I have a mortgage, taxes, utilities, normal upkeep, etc. I should not have the extra burden of replacing carpeting, linoleum that has been chewed, cabinetry that has been chewed on and urinated on.... The list goes on. My sympathies with the landlord. Many people do rent to owners of small pets. When I was young, I found places to live with my dogs.

Danielle_82 · 10-12-2006, 04:02 AM

it sounds a little too much like entrapment to me. Dont get me wrong Im all for service and therapy animals of all kinds however there is a difference between someone who just thought it would be a good idea to help them through a hard time and an actual registered service animal. It doesnt sound like the testers actually made it clear that these animals were actual service animals, and that its against the law to deny them. I know for a fact that many people are not aware of the many different types of service animals, allthough I guess if your a landlord it might just be your duty to know the laws. I dont know I keep going back and forth on this.

10-11-2006, 10:50 PM	#1
romeos mommy YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Voorhees, NJ Posts: 3,511	landlord sued over animal policy interesting article. What do you think? http://www.allaroundcleveland.com/si...id=21849&rfi=6 __________________ Bernadette & Romeo

10-11-2006, 11:42 PM	#2
AllyKenyon Senior Yorkie Talker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 168	hmmmm...i cant really decide what i think about that article...i think he should not be fined i guess __________________ The Kenyon Family Ally, Ivan, Rylee, & McKinzy Fergie Mangle

10-11-2006, 11:50 PM	#3
MeganS Donating YT 7000 Club Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 10,381 Blog Entries: 1	hmmm. I dunno. I think the cost of the fine is rather over the top. I also feel that the "testers" hadn't given him enough information for him to be able to decide fairly. Maybe he should have been confronted about it, but I think fining him like that was just rediculous. __________________ Megan"Take a chance that's worth the taking" - 9 to 5 the musical Obama/Biden '08! ~ Yes we CAN! Change is coming!

10-12-2006, 02:25 AM	#5
SnowWa YT 2000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,991	As much as we all of us love our little guys (and other pets) --- how many of us - if we had rentals - would want rent to people with pets. What if we did rent to people with pets - and most of the time ended up with more damage than their deposits could cover??? How about the thousands of posts here about our puppies eating drywall - peeing on carpets - ruining carpets - and doing other damage, etc. (And we have "very little dogs.") What about larger pets - more damage! - I have seen many yards totally ruined by large dogs having to be fenced in.... If your pets damage your own house and your own yard - that's fair..... but, it's not right to ruin other people's property. ***** I am on the landlord's side..totally - 100% He wasn't against renting to handicapped or mentally ill persons - he just didn't want to rent to people with pets - and he said he certainly would have rented to a person with a seeing eye dog etc. I remember for years (in California) having a hard time finding places that would accept pets.... and there was a reason - most of the ones that did accept pets - weren't very nice. ** Don't people have anything better to do than go around and trick and lie to people and entrap them - and then sue them.... shame shame shame!!! I live in a very nice condo area (duplexes - 3000 sq feet). Two of these condos were rented for short periods of time to people with dogs - and the carpets were ruined in both of these houses. There was probably other damage also - that I'm not aware of. But - these condos are new and the ruined carpets should have lasted for another 10 or 15 years...... I'm sure the owners paid 95% of the replacement cost for these carpets and any other damage. Carol Jean __________________ http://tinypic.com/ipxhmb.jpg A Yorkie is worth a thousand words.

10-12-2006, 03:08 AM	#6
MyTrixie143 Mom to 6 Beautiful Furkids Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 4,200	I have mixed feelings about this. On the one side, I completely feel for the landlord and I think it was really unfair what they did to him and he should not be fined. I completely understand why he had a no pets policy and why many other landlords have the same rule. On the otherhand, there is a no win situation for renters and landlords. It is hard to find a place to rent that allows animals. That is because people abuse the priveladge and their pets end up destroying or doing alot of damage to the apartments. Yet for those of us who take good care of our pets and the place we are renting, it makes it hard for us to get a place to rent because of the few people who let their pets do damage to the place which ruins are chances of being allowed to have pets and rent. How can a landlord determine whether you will be an excellent renter who takes care of the place and your pets from those who don't?? I use to live in a housing complex, very nice houses, all brand new. When we were going through the process to rent the place they did not allow animals, especially no dogs. I asked them to make an exception as I had my cocker who I have had for many years and there was no way I could part with her. So they did make an exception and even changed their rule to where you were allowed one dog 25 pounds and under, that was the weight of my cocker. Well we took very good care of the place of course with no damages or anything, you woulden't have known there was ever a dog there. Our landlord even fell in love with my cocker, most people do. When we moved, we got all of our deposit back and very good compliments and references stating how well we took care of the place and our pets. They even said they would be more than happy to have us back if we ever wanted to move back. However, the story was completely different with the house next to us. They had a dog too. But they did not take care of the place and let the dog ruin it. When they moved out, the landlord found poop and stains everywhere, carpet was worn from frequent digging in certain places, woodwork was chewed and some drywall was chewed as well. So, there was two houses beside each other that both had dogs. One house was left in perfect condition and the other was ruined by a dog and cost them alot of money for the repairs. There was no way the landlord would have been able to know that these people would do this. Unless you have good references where you rented before and owned a pet, the landlord is taking a chance by letting you have a pet. So I understand the landlord's view point but because of people who have dogs who neglect the place they are renting, they make it harder for us responsible dog owners to be able to rent. It is all really unfair. Why can't everyone who has a dog that rents take care of the place?!? Sorry, this is longer than I thought. I just had to express my opinion on this no win situation. __________________ A dog is a furry person! http://www.dogster.com/?300866 Tracey & the gang Destiny Scampers Harmony Brownie Buster Trixie~Sugar~Peppi~Daisy

10-12-2006, 12:09 AM	#4
sweetr72 REECE & SOLEIL Donating Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 6,110	Arent there more important things in the country these people could do?? I feel for the landlord...he should have that right as the owner of a building to do as he wants and not be tricked like that...he sounds like a decent man, worrying about childrens safetly in his building...feeling sorry for the man who supposedly lost his wife and child...why pick on people?? Why not help them out?? Its like everything pure in this world has to be tainted somehow by someone!! There are lots of bad guys to fight out in the world with all the wars going on and the sickos lurking in the streets..why go after a perfectly nice person?? I for one respect his decisions and hate that he was 'tested' like that..make me want to test the testers lol..Sorry I had a crappy day lol... Dawn

10-12-2006, 03:44 AM	#7
jjl720 Senior Yorkie Talker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New York Posts: 83	these testers used entrapment. If there is a medical need, it should be given in writing by a DR. Otherwise we all could say we have the need for pets. As an owner of investment property and obviously a pet lover, I still do not rent to pet owners because have seen first hand the damage irresponsible people allow their pets to do. After all, it is my home they are renting. They have nothing on the line but rent. I have a mortgage, taxes, utilities, normal upkeep, etc. I should not have the extra burden of replacing carpeting, linoleum that has been chewed, cabinetry that has been chewed on and urinated on.... The list goes on. My sympathies with the landlord. Many people do rent to owners of small pets. When I was young, I found places to live with my dogs.

10-12-2006, 04:02 AM	#8
Danielle_82 Senior Yorkie Talker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 120	it sounds a little too much like entrapment to me. Dont get me wrong Im all for service and therapy animals of all kinds however there is a difference between someone who just thought it would be a good idea to help them through a hard time and an actual registered service animal. It doesnt sound like the testers actually made it clear that these animals were actual service animals, and that its against the law to deny them. I know for a fact that many people are not aware of the many different types of service animals, allthough I guess if your a landlord it might just be your duty to know the laws. I dont know I keep going back and forth on this.