Landlord sued for disallowing medical pets

[Neonit]

You do know that those "no dogs allowed" rules are made to annoy people, because people who make those rules are evil evil baby eating puppy kicking bastards?

It looks like the same bs we had back in Netherlands. some taxi drivers wouldnt allow dog guides for the blind into taxi. so they were fined. guess what would happen if one of them would let a dog in, and then the next client would be allergic to dog fur. guess who would pay the medical costs. yeah.

No human was discriminated in this case. so the landlord is not wrong. besides, its not like it was "slaughter teh animal or you are out!", they were given a choice to pay more to stay, now werent they? dogs leave a lot of fur behind, i know it because i have a dog, and its pain in the ass to clean it all up hence the additional expenses. seems reasonable to me.

but yeah, little girls and puppies are cuuuuute ^.^

 

[Raddra]

The landlord is -not- in the right and will -not- win.

 

[QuantumT]

While I completely support people with pets for medical purposes, I don't understand how legally an animal can be exempt from the 'no pets allowed' rule.

Don't get me wrong; I absolutely love animals, and I'm not debating the right/wrongs of the rule, but I'm really not seeing how a a medical pet has any more right to be there than any other animal. This girl's companion could potentially be as disruptive as any other animal, so if you're letting one in, why not let them all in?

And yes, I understand that medical pets are necessary for many people, but I'm specifically not understanding the difference between letting say, a seeing eye dog live in the building, as opposed to a regular dog.

Because legally the service dog is treated as a medical device, the same as a wheelchair, cane, crutches, etc. It's treated as discrimination based on disability, which is illegal in the US under the Fair Housing Act.

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title24/24-1.2.1.1.1.4.93.5.html

 

[chowderface]

And yes, I understand that medical pets are necessary for many people, but I'm specifically not understanding the difference between letting say, a seeing eye dog live in the building, as opposed to a regular dog.

Seeing eye dogs and other service animals are specially trained. You don't just take any random-ass puppy that looks cute and hand it to a blind person in the hopes that it figures things out. It has to be trained from the moment it's independent from its mother to cater to the needs of the specific disability it's meant to assist (so a seeing-eye dog is going to be different from an emotional support dog), and it's especially going to have to be trained to behave itself in situations where a regular dog would flip its shit and wreck up the place. That's why you only see a few different breeds being used as service dogs; you need an animal that's smart enough to be trained relatively quickly, and tractable enough that it'll obey every time once it has been trained.

 

[Davih]

How is getting a dog gonna help the little girl? The only medical pet I'm aware of is a guide dog and that's because they need something to guide where they go.

TBH it sounds like they wanted to get a dog and are using her disability to get this dog so IMO the landlord should be in the right.

 

[Gigano]

Well, if the dog is really a prescribed medical necessity, then that most certainly sounds like something that'd fall under "reasonable accommodations" to me.

 

[daydreamerdeluxe]

One thing that would be good to know is if they had the dog before or after they moved there. If they already had the dog, then it was a bit irresponsible of them and they should have looked for a place with a pets policy, but if the dog was prescribed whilst they were living there, the landlord has very little choice. If it was a blind person, he would be sued out his ass for refusing to let their guide dog stay there. It's based on exactly the same principles in this case.

 

[Tselis]

It depends on the financial status of the family in question. As the parent of a special needs child I can attest to the fact that they can have some very special needs, which can be very financially draining. If this family has no other place to live, can't afford to more or whatnot, then no, the landlords are just being dicks in the noble cause of making more money. If this family can afford the deposit, or afford to move to a more pet friendly place then that might want to be considered. First and foremost though, you have to consider the needs of the child. A move can be traumatic to an adult, and especially so to a child. To a child with special needs though, it can ecplise everything else replacing what was once a stable setting with chaos. It might not seem that way to someone looking at it from the outside. Sometimes it seems so insane, but after you've spent enough time living in the 'special needs/ needs accomidation' world, nothing seems insane, or even very weird anymore. The judge is going to have to take a close look at what damage will be done to the parties involved and decide carefully.

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

I've never needed to take anything for my depression, luckily, however I just don't see how giving a girl a puppy will help. If her depression is a long term thing, then having a pet won't help, because it'll be dead in about 10 years. So I think it would be better, if the suing family went back to the doctor, got some meds, got rid of the dog, and stopped this ridiculous law suit on the land lord who already had the no-pets policy. He has every right to ask them to pay more, as others have said, it's gunna cost him more to have the place cleaned, so why shouldn't they pay for it?

 

[AngloDoom]

I can see both sides, really. I mean, I'm going to assume that the parents of the child were quite aware that she had cerebral palsy when they moved into the house and would have known she was entitled to the dog. In that case, if the landlord says "no pets" then I can honestly see why the landlord would get miffed.

That said, it's not a derpy little puppy who's going to tear furniture to bits.

I'm very much unsure about this one.

 

[Tselis]

How is getting a dog gonna help the little girl? The only medical pet I'm aware of is a guide dog and that's because they need something to guide where they go.

TBH it sounds like they wanted to get a dog and are using her disability to get this dog so IMO the landlord should be in the right.

...well actually. Not only do they have seeing eye dogs, but they have seizure dogs as well. The dogs can actually smell/tell the difference between it's person sitting on a bench dozing, and their person sitting on a bench having a seizure. Sometimes they looks identical. There are also dogs used for people with heart problems. And then there are the dogs used in trauma therapy to try to get people to reconnect with something outside of their own mind. There are also dogs like this one which are used for people for which nothing else will work. The kid had a major, chronic illness. Do you really think that her doctors can just slap an anti-depressant in her mom's hand and send them on their merry way? You do realize that almost every current gen anti-depressant alters brain chemistry. How do you think those would interact with the medicine that she already has to take? You know, the ones that are probably letting her keep on living.
Dogs are amazing creatures. Beyond being adorable, loyal, brave and loving, they also have a wide array of medical uses, many of which we are only just discovering.
I'm not trying to jump on you or anything, but my husband works at a hospital, and I see this kind of ignorant discrimination constantly. It really bothers me that other people think they can assess someone eles's needs solely by looking over them once, or reading a short article.

 

[AngloDoom]

The landlord is -not- in the right and will -not- win.

Would you mind if I asked you to expand upon that?

I mean, it's just some person who's decided they want to put a property up for sale. They specifically said that they wouldn't allow pets because it's their house - they have every right to make such demands of course. Then someone turns up, says they'll buy your house. Great! Then they say they've got a dog. Oh dear.

As far as I understand, they didn't wind up in the house by accident or chance. The people involved chose to live in a house where the owner asked specifically for no pets. Many landlords/ladys/whatevertherterms would have made exceptions. The landlord in question says he's happy to accept the dog for increased rent/deposit, which is exactly what landlords will do in the same situation with any pet.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I just wanted to ask your opinion more fully.

 

[Brandon237]

The land lord is in the right. If he had that rule before the lady even moved in then she knew that she was not allowed a pet. End 'o story.
However, since they are crying discrimination and because the kid is crippled or whatever the hell it is, the landlord is gonna lose. Not because he is in the wrong but because the other side gets to pull a fucking sob story.

This to the Nth degree...

A landlord should be fully allowed to not allow animals onto his premises, he is the one renting out his place, he should, to a reasonable limit, be allowed to without question say what can and can't come into the premises, and I feel that a dog, which can be loud, messy, destructive et cetera is certainly within that reasonable limit. You cannot make something someone else's problem without their consent, the repercussions of having a dog there should not be the landlord's problem without him giving it the okay. Which he didn't.

And you are right, sad stories like this get too much sway in court, for the landlord this is a two-way losing battle, this person and their daughter show up and suddenly the landlord has to either change his policies and suffer the animal he didn't want there, or go to court. That is not fair and it is unnecessarily pushing this thing to the legal system and causing chaos for this landlord who did nothing in this case.

Flameshield... no, give me my flame-bunker for this one.

 

[Zaik]

This happens often enough that I'm surprised it's even worth making a topic. I guess it just caught someone's attention because the kid is just 7.

A landlord can't refuse a person with a service animal on the grounds of "no pets", because a service animal isn't considered a pet. Any landlord with half a brain cell would know to just outright refuse someone with a service animal at all(which is allowed), rather than to make the issue strictly about "pets", but some are dumb enough to get sued.

 

[Krantos]

Not really a whole lot of question here. The dog is required for the girl, thereby they aren't supposed to charge extra.

People say the landlord should be able to charge more, but this is against the law for two reasons.

1. Having a dog in an apartment (I have one) could be considered a luxury for most. This entitles Landlords to charge a fee. In this case, the dog is not a luxury, but a necessity.

2. People with disabilities already deal with much higher costs of living due to medical bills. It is unfair to also make them pay higher housing expenses because of required accommodations.

The landlord is violating the disabilities act. They are in the wrong.

 

[Simskiller]

Why are people focussing on the destructiveness of the pet? Why not the allergies that the pet could cause in other tenants? Oh sure the pet could be good for the little girl but it could be horrible and hell for anyone else with an allergy.

 

[ace_of_something]

How is getting a dog gonna help the little girl? The only medical pet I'm aware of is a guide dog and that's because they need something to guide where they go.

TBH it sounds like they wanted to get a dog and are using her disability to get this dog so IMO the landlord should be in the right.

I wondered how one uses a Dog to help someone with palsy. My guess is that it pulls her wheel chair, opens doors etc. (I've seen a mastiff trained to open doors and fetch food out of the fridge before) Though it says it's for 'emotional support' she lives in a dinky town maybe people are not so cosmopolitan and nice to the kid who has spasms occasionally. I know I'm from a place that was technically a 'Thorpe.' You do not want to be different there.

 

[Davih]

How is getting a dog gonna help the little girl? The only medical pet I'm aware of is a guide dog and that's because they need something to guide where they go.

TBH it sounds like they wanted to get a dog and are using her disability to get this dog so IMO the landlord should be in the right.

I wondered how one uses a Dog to help someone with palsy. My guess is that it pulls her wheel chair, opens doors etc. (I've seen a mastiff trained to open doors and fetch food out of the fridge before) Though it says it's for 'emotional support' she lives in a dinky town maybe people are not so cosmopolitan and nice to the kid who has spasms occasionally. I know I'm from a place that was technically a 'Thorpe.' You do not want to be different there.

For emotional support a hamster or a gerbil, something along the lines of a small rodent in a cage seems a lot more appropriate than a dog. And even so, she has her family for emotional support.

 

[Kryzantine]

How is getting a dog gonna help the little girl? The only medical pet I'm aware of is a guide dog and that's because they need something to guide where they go.

TBH it sounds like they wanted to get a dog and are using her disability to get this dog so IMO the landlord should be in the right.

I wondered how one uses a Dog to help someone with palsy. My guess is that it pulls her wheel chair, opens doors etc. (I've seen a mastiff trained to open doors and fetch food out of the fridge before) Though it says it's for 'emotional support' she lives in a dinky town maybe people are not so cosmopolitan and nice to the kid who has spasms occasionally. I know I'm from a place that was technically a 'Thorpe.' You do not want to be different there.

For emotional support a hamster or a gerbil, something along the lines of a small rodent in a cage seems a lot more appropriate than a dog. And even so, she has her family for emotional support.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But that's for the doctor to decide, not the law, and the doctor's decision has to be respected by the law in this case. The point is not whether the animal is necessary, even if it might be an issue, the point is that it has already been deemed necessary and the landlord is not allowing the animal regardless of that. On a bare issue of legality, HUD wins this one easily.