Question on ADA (animals)

[Debbie]

I've yet to come across potential tenant with "certified comfort animals" but thought I'd be prepared....

While I do allow very specific pets (i.e. breeds) into my rental properties, I do want to avoid being forced to take other unapproved pets (i.e. aggressive breeds, ferrets, monkey, etc).

I've been doing a some research on ADA but unfortunately, the ADA's statements are not quite clear....hence my question:

To avoid receiving a fake doctor letter, do I have the right to approve a good risk potential tenant under the condition of my receiving a direct letter from Tenant's doctor stating that it is his/her precription of comfort animal for depression or medical purposes?

Thanx.
Debbie

[SlumLordMike]

Deb, if you are going to rent to pets, you might as well rent to special pets too. Personally, I have some places I will allow pets, and others not. If you can build in the cost of carpet and floors into the rent and deposit, you might find a very long term tenant(s). I have a "professional carpet" cleaning stipulation in my leases that has worked quite well so far. My next clause addition will address the stomped dead grass issue for the lovers of outside pets. :)

[Debbie]

Hi Mike,

Since day one, we have always allowed certain pets, hence longer term tenants. Plus, we do have rental clauses mentioning professional carpet cleaning and professional exterminator for potential fleas.

We do rent to pets but with conditions. Such as no aggressive dogs, not to exceed two pets (limits to one dog and one cat), must be spayed/neutered and must be indoor pets. Outdoor animals not allowed. The dog must be trained (basics) and above 18 months old.

We do NOT want anyone to say that their "aggressive" dog must be accepted because their doctor said so. Maybe I'm in denial (or maybe I'm misinformed) that ADA would allow anyone to have a doctor to prescribe a "serviced comfort animals" that happens to be an aggressive dog, wild monkey, ferret, bird, rat, tarantulas, etc.

[Aldo]

To the best of my knowledge, the ADA has not approved (yet) animals for, shall I say, emotional support. Yes, it's been talked about, but I don't believe it's been approved or enacted.

I normally don't allow pets; but, due to poor rental market conditions, I chose to permit a small dog (under 20# adult weight) in first floor units. Of course, I'll permit approved service animals, but those generally do not include aggressive breeds because those breeds are not usually suitable as service animals.

It's very important for you to know that insurers have a list of thirteen breeds of dogs which, if found on an insured property, will result in immediate cancellation of insurance coverage.

Cats? There ain't no way they're (knowingly) getting into my units. A small dog can destroy $100 worth of woodwork by chewing while a single bladder blast from a cat can destroy $1000 worth of carpeted flooring.

[FL Beachgirl]

I know what a couple of those breeds are Aldo, but would you mind listing them please?

Is there a way to find out which insurance companies have this list without calling them all? Those would be the companies I would NOT purchase insurance through....as a home owner as well as a potential landlord in the future.
As a pet owner (of an "aggressive" breed) it is extremely frustrating and insulting to me to have someone tell me "You can't do or have ___ because you own ____ kind of dog" When I know that the breed of the dog has about as much to do with how an animal behaves as the color of the sky does.

Thanks ;)

Jennifer

[Debbie]

Jennifer,

I'll provide the insurance list in a moment....

Keep in mind that although we do allow pets, there are conditions regarding pets....

We do not allow any mixed breed that may contain "aggressive" breed. For example, mixed chow chow and labrador. In order for the potential tenant to prove it, they must have the vet to directly send me a letter that they do not believe there's such "aggressive" breed mixed. If the vet can not determine the mixed breeds, then the potential tenant will have to find another place.

Of course, we always meet ALL pets PRIOR to approval.

For the time being, my specific insurance company DOES NOT have breed ban.

Here's the list from most insurance companies that states any of the following dog breeds or a mixed breed that includes one of the following:

Rottweilers
Pit Bulls (irregardless of they are properly called)
Chow Chows
Great Danes
Shepards (any type)
Siberian Huskies
Lab mixes (have usually found the mixes to end up being crossed with something big and mean)
Cane Corsos
Airdales
Dalmations
Akitas
Alaskian Malamutes
Boxers
Bullmastiffs
Dobermans
Eskimo spitzs
Giant Schauzer
Presa carario
Saint bernard

Personally, we DO accept St. Bernard and Great Dane

Hope this helps you out, Jennifer

[Aldo]

Debbie, thanx for posting the list which is longer than I expected and was probably updated since the last time I discussed with anyone. Personally, I have no interest in the list because the only dogs I'll permit cannot weigh more than twenty pounds when full grown. Part of my reason for the criterium is that large dogs (banned or otherwise) intimidate or scare other tenants and their visitors as well as neighbors who only see "a big dog".

[Debbie]

Would you believe that small strange dogs intimidates me?

As a former volunteer dog trainer, I've come across many small breeds who can move faster than Superman, especially that likes to show teeth!

However, I often fall in love with small breeds who are familiar with me....

[REItobe]

well I'm with FL beachgirl on this. But we have already debated this previously and no need to hash it out again.

That list is absurd. no dalmations?

I am just wondering if your selective criteria is opening you guys to lawsuits? I mean one thing is no dogs over xx pounds or no dogs that violate your insurance policy. But some properties yes, some no, depends on dog, and whether its neutered/spayed, age of dog, your own temperment test, etc. Our society is very sue-happy and this may be a can of worms, maybe not.

[Debbie]

I am just wondering if your selective criteria is opening you guys to lawsuits?

You know me better than that, REItobe.....

The list provided is NOT by me but by majority of the insurance companies.

Currently, my insurance company (State Farm) does not have the list. However, I have been recently informed that due to large recent increase of dog bites, they are in the process of developing the banned list. Not to mention my four relatives who work in Emergency Room (different hospitals) who deals with dog bites that are over 800% in the last year---but that's being off-topic.

Also, based on my communicating with several different insurance companies, they informed me that should a landlord disregard their banned list and allow tenant to have a "banned" breed, the landlord WILL lose the insurance policy.

I don't like it at all. I am fully aware of "banned" breeds happens to be the most gentlest dogs with great dog owners. I'm friends with them.

Unfortunately, I need insurance. Plus, I CAN NOT trust the tenant to be a good dog owner.....

It's one of those "Darn if you do, Darn if you don't". Plus, today is NOT my good day.....

[REItobe]

i know the list is not yours.


And if you read my post, obviously if a dog violates your insurance policy, you can not allow the tenant there regardless of how you feel.

But some of the criteria that was mentioned is not black and white but grayish and can be possibly used against you in a civil suit.

Look I have 2 of these "aggressive" dogs. That doesnt mean I will open any furture rentals to every dog out there. First if you're dog is prohibitted by the insurance, sorry, NEXT. I would probably require a much higher deposit as well. then if i wanted to temperment test the dog, i would probably require the dog to go to a 3rd party certified/licensed/accredited/knows more than me/un-biased tester at the owners expense.

[FL Beachgirl]

Back to Debbie's post...

The reason that emergency rooms see more large dog bites is not because large dogs bite more, but because they do more damage. A small dog can be just as aggressive and not do alot of damage...biting through thick jeans for instance may only cause a minor bruise from a small dog where a large dog is likely to tear flesh.
And IMO, it truely is unfortunate that you don't need a lisence to own a dog. People should be required to obtain some sort of certification before being allowed to have any kind of dog regardless of size IMO. I realize that would be extremely difficult to implement, but it is no more rediculous than insurance companies banning certian breeds from thier covered lists. There are no bad dogs, just bad owners...if that could be eliminated from the equation then these poor animals wouldn't maintain such a bad rep.
I totally understand from a landlords perspective however why you wouldn't allow certain breeds on your property...you MUST have property insurance or you're opening yourself up to be a very poor LL. Every aspect of your property including the pets your tenant has NEEDS to be covered by your polocy. But as a future LL I would seek out a company that does not have a banned breed list and maybe I would require that the potential tenant put thier pet through temperment testing before I allow them to lease from me. I don't feel that would be unreasonable, and if someone really wants to live on my property they'll do it and pay the cost of the test gladly. From my perspective when I was on the tenant side of things, I would gladly have submitted my dogs to a test and paid for it AND put down additional deposit, because they are that important to me, and I know I am not the only large breed dog owner out there that feels that strongly. I also however am a responsible pet owner and went way out of my way to make sure I raised my dogs right so they wouldn't be a risk like so many people's pets are...regardless of size or breed.

Jennifer

[Debbie]

REItobe and Jennifer,

I LOVE that idea about temperment testing. That's an EXCELLENT idea!

REI,
I understand what you're saying and I do concur with you. Like I said, "Darn if you do, Darn if you don't"....BTW, I'm really glad that you know me better.

Jennifer,
To the best of my knowledge, State Farm is the only insurance company that does not have a "Banned Breed List". But recently, it certainly sounds like they may be in the process of creating one. Let's hope they won't.

[Terry CA]

Took me forever to get logged back into this site..it does NOT like AOL.

Anyway..to answer the ORIGINAL question here. The comfort ANIMAL (it is not a comfort PET) is a Federal ADA law driven a lot by "case law" as it stands now.

Two requirements a LL can request though I would advise you contact a well versed LANDLORD attorney if you find yourself in this situation.

First off these animals if qualified are NOT PETS. They do NOT have to be "service animals" either. If qualified you can NOT ask for additional deposit or charge additional rent - same rules as for service ANIMALS.

The only two things that a LL can (with good legal guidance) go for is:

1) The professional letter has to be from someone who would have reasonable knowledge of the patient's disability and their "need" for this "comfort animal". They do NOT have to be a doctor per se but must be "qualified" and involved in the treatment of the patient FOR THEIR DISABILITY. A therapist or even physical therapist can be found to be qualified depending on the disability. You CANNOT inquire into the specifics of the disability BUT they must have a bonifide disability.

2) The "comfort animal" is treated as an accomodation for the person with a disability NOT as a pet. So the "rule" that says LL must allow accomodation if it is reasonable applies. In a nut shell if they get a note that says they need a pit bull..the LL can prove that the request would not be reasonable due to other tenants safety AND your insurance policy. It must not put the landlord out in an unreasonable manner.

I have studied dozens of local cases on this and spoke with FOUR well versed attorneys on it.

Our county is right now being targeted by ADA/fair housing testers on this very topic. We were all told to NOT put NO PETS in our advertising because the testers are starting there. I decided to still put NO PETS in my advertising because 1) these "comfort animals" are NOT pets by the ADA description so I'm still OK and 2) if someone calls and asks...we were told to use the "only those ANIMALS as required by Federal and/or State law" with no further elaboration.

I just want to emphasize to everyone here that this is the #1 hot issue right now. And ADA complaints are the number one target against LL's right now..more so than minority discrimination, etc.

So please be on the lookout and tread with caution.

[Debbie]

Terry---

Thanx so much---it helps alot to beware of what's happening with ADA.

Even my attorney brother found ADA's rules very frustrating!

[Aldo]

With due respect, it appears that Terry offers a lot of great info for CA investors based on her citations of CA-specific case law and county-specific regulation. This is becoming a very important issue with the ADA folks who, themselves, aren't clear about what they can or should require. The bottom line is that, when the second shoe drops, there will be more hoops to jump through for landlords when screening an applicant whose great uncle died 20 years ago.

[Terry CA]

Aldo..ADA and the case laws I was referring to in this thread are FEDERAL not STATE of CA. Just wanted to clear that up.

Anyone can do a search on the net and read all about this and the NATIONWIDE impact it is and will continue to have on LL's everywhere.

True CA is the most litigeous state in the nation so we often feel it sooner than others but THIS issue and the tightening of ADA regulations applies nationwide.

[Aldo]

Thanx, Terry. Though I disagree with the case law you refer to, I understand the thinking behind it. My next question would be which state(s) created that case law - or do I already know? My issue was that your post appeared to be not only state-specific, but county-specific, especially toward the end. My intent was to ensure that the fambly was aware that their likely perception may not apply in their area.

If I read you right, I agree that the Feds often take their cues from CA.

[Terry CA]

This FEDERAL issue has all sorts of case law precedents set in the last two years..from all over in various states. This is FEDERAL law from the FEDERAL ADA.

A quick search on the internet will provide more info than anyone would ever want to know on this STUPID issue (pardon me).

[Aldo]

I agree that it's a federal thing. What I was getting at was that state and local gov't bodies are permitted to tweak the fed rules to tighten the rules. That more localized legislation would not be applicable in other jurisdictions until a court finds a 'tweak' it likes and decides that a city's tweak should be applied to it's surrounding county. The next court likes it and chooses to apply it that county's state. The next court..................

Enter case law. The volume of case law is mind-boggling and often contradictory. It's hard to keep score without a scorecard, but those aren't made available which, in a way, is a good thing. Before we had that scorecard, there'd be new case law which requires a new scorecard.......ad infinitum.

The ADA rules are but a tiny fraction of what investors need to know. There has been a lot of great info shared in this thread and I, for one, am ready to take on another challenging topic.