Landlord sued for disallowing medical pets

[bluepilot]

It is not discrimination though

The landlord is just enforcing the rules that apply to anyone who wants to keep a pet in the rented apartment. Whether it be a sick child with a medicinal puppy (I want one), and old grannie with her pretty kitty, or a kid from a divorced marriage with his parrot, all are expected to pay the extra fee.

Why should she be treated differently just because she happens to be sick? How is that being treated equality?

 

[McMullen]

The pet can damage the apartment and be a nuisance to other tenants, some of whom may have chosen the apartment specifically because of the no pets policy.

No I'm not anti-dog, I love dogs (when they're raised by people with the diligence to do so correctly anyway), but I've also cleaned up more than my share of turds and urine from a dog that a roommate just got one day because he thought it would be cool, and let tear up the house, and I'd rather not play that particular version of roommate roulette again.

Landlords seems reasonable, will probably lose anyway because it's a widdle defensewess girl and the media and public opinion will tear them to pieces.

 

[lacktheknack]

Fun Fact: In my University, there's a residence conduit that connects two sections of campus. ABSOLUTELY NO PETS ALLOWED. They've never been allowed. Except for the blind student with the seeing eye dog, he's fine.

Same thing here. This isn't "a pet", this is "prescribed medical equipment" (and if you're going to deny the healing powers of a pet, go lrn2psychology).

Fun Fact: In your University, no one cares about your little story.

The land lord owns the property, thus he gets to set the rules. The childs problems are exactly that. The childs problems. They knew the rules when they signed the lease. As previously stated, end 'o story.
The mutt is still going to be a hassle. It will mess up the apartment, may make noise disturbing other residents who all went there knowing there would be no animals and will probably have to have a area to crap. So now, not only the owner but other residents of that complex have to be inconvenienced by some elses problems. Not to mention if the next tenant is allergic to mutts.
Only reason this is a issue is because its a kid and they pulled the discrimination card.
Even then the land lord was very accommodating and willing to let them stay for a slight increase.

Oh and "lrn2psychology" really? Am I on 4chan now? Besides, if I "lrnt2psychology" I may as well lrn2readtealeaves or lrn2horoscope just to round out my degree in bullshitology.

You seem to have a lot of info on how ALL dogs work. If you've ever had a dog, you clearly never learned how to train it. A well trained dog is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER an inconvenience outside of poop scooping. But you train them to use papers.

Thankfully, this is a support dog, which has already been trained in all this extremely thoroughly. Of course, facts be damned if you're to lazy to do a bit of Googling and want to assume.

 

[Thamous]

The property belongs to him, he can disallow whatever he damn well pleases. If he doesn't want his tenant to have pets of any kind that is his decision. No one has the right to tell him who he can and cannot let stay in his property. If this person wants to keep their pet they should go find a different residence not expect the government to come in and make him let them live their.

 

[evilneko]

THEY SIGNED A FUCKING LEASE SAYING NO PETS ALLOWED! END 'O STORY.
.

And the landlord broke the law.

 

[lacktheknack]

You seem to have a lot of info on how ALL dogs work. If you've ever had a dog, you clearly never learned how to train it. A well trained dog is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER an inconvenience outside of poop scooping. But you train them to use papers.

Thankfully, this is a support dog, which has already been trained in all this extremely thoroughly. Of course, facts be damned if you're to lazy to do a bit of Googling and want to assume.

And yet you are the one doing all the assuming about me. And talking out your ass while you are at it. No matter how well trained a dog it is still a living animal, it will still occasionally bark and be a pain in the ass. Saying "NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER" is just 100% pure bullshit.
I also note that you ignore all the other ways the animal will inconvenience everyone else, especially the fact that it will leave fur around. So unless they are going to shave it that is unavoidable. Not to mention that goddamn dog stink.

And let me say for the 3rd goddamn time, all nice and capped so its perfectly clear.

THEY SIGNED A FUCKING LEASE SAYING NO PETS ALLOWED! END 'O STORY.

Who cares what the kid "needs" That is not the landlords problem. He aint her daddy, the kids issues are exactly that, that kids issues. And I personally hope he evicts them for being such unreasonable pricks.

Now I will let you get back to your assuming you know everything about everyone and ignoring all the points that clearly invalidate everything you say.

Yet YOU can't seem to understand that "medical prescription" =/= "pets". Not to mention that the landlord BROKE THE LAW. THAT'S the landlord's problem.

And dog stink: Fixed by bathing. Personal testament. Dog hair: Non-shedding dogs don't leave hair. I've had deadly allergic people in my house, they didn't have a reaction. And no, you CAN train a dog to NEVER bark and NEVER whine and NEVER annoy. It's totally possible! Hence and the nevers I used. I meant them all. I've EXPERIENCED them all. But clearly, it's all out my ass because you could NEVER be wrong, and will NEVER believe me because you're logic is infallable and I'm completely out of touch with how dogs work - OH WAIT.

Points that invalidate everything I say... Are they all coming from the depths of your imagination? How about the OTHER points made in my favor by others? Wanna just ignore them because this issue can be reduced to "the little cerebral palsy girl is being unreasonable" in your head? EXCUUUUUSE ME while I refuse to accept that.

So, let me all-caps back at you: IT'S NOT A STANDARD PET. TRY TO UNDERSTAND. NOT THAT YOU EVER WILL.

EDIT: Also, I now hope that you have a kid with cerebral palsy, because it's just "kid issues". Words don't explain how absolutely ENRAGED your snarky comments have gotten me.

EDIT 2: OK, they're just "that kid's issues", due to misread. WELL TOO DAMN BAD THAT THERE'S A LAW ABOUT THAT. WHICH HE'S BREAKING.

 

[QuantumT]

Fascinating how complete judgements are passed out based on single words.

We don't know jack squat about any of the oh-so-many details that could change everything, and still they're happily quoted to prove points on both side of the spectrum.

Let's throw out a few examples:

- The landlord was offering them the option to pay extra. How much? It's never mentioned, but it can easily be anything from "minor fee to cover coping with dog hairs" to "extortionate".

Legally the size of the fee is completely irrelevant. If it's more than 0, it's against the law.

- Is this the kind of support animal that's extensively trained to perform a special task? It's said nowhere. The only thing flouted is "support dog", and I sincerely doubt the writer of the article is an expert on service dogs.
It might be specially trained to the point where it will never cause trouble, it might be the cutest puppy from the shelter. Who knows?

It's a specially trained emotional support dog. It isn't just some random puppy.

- Did the family move in with the dog, or was the dog prescribed when they already lived there for years? It's mentioned nowhere, but still I see assumptions brought up to serve as argument.

- Are we even sure that a dog in one apartment can cause an allergic neighbour to start having attacks? It sounds a bit far-fetched to me - even on the assumption that there could be somebody living there who needs hospitalization as soon as he sniffs a dog.

Legally this is irrelevant. Additionally, when they're willing to allow it as long as some fee is paid, clearly the well being of other tenants is not what they're concerned about.

 

[QuantumT]

EDIT: Also, I now hope that you have a kid with cerebral palsy, because it's just "kid issues". Words don't explain how absolutely ENRAGED your snarky comments have gotten me.

I basically agree with you completely, except on this point. I know it was probably said in jest, but all the same cerebral palsy isn't something to wish upon a completely innocent human being.

I understand that he's being completely unreasonable, but all the same it doesn't help to wish harm upon an innocent person.

EDIT: Excuse me for the double post. Nothing appeared for some time and I didn't think the post got through.

 

[Cazza]

I can see both sides having vaild points. It will be interesting to find how this turns out. I think the people with the better case will win. Hopefully more money doesn't = better case. I bet the landlord will have more money seeing as they can afford to rent out a place and the family need to pay medical costs.

 

[Linda Bridget]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is accusing the owners of an Iowa apartment building of discrimination for refusing to allow a sick child to live with a medically-prescribed emotional support animal.

HUD says the owners of the building in Traer, a town about 65
miles northwest of Cedar Rapids, are violating the Fair Housing
Act, which requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.

In this case, HUD says a 7-year-old girl who has cerebral palsy has been refused permission to live with a support dog because of the landlord's "no-pet policy." HUD says the girl's mother was told that if she got the animal, she'd either have to move or pay more to stay.

If a judge finds discrimination occurred, damages can be awarded.

For reference the town in question has about 1600 people.
Non-US folks HUD is a part of the government that basically oversees, zoning, housing, renting laws and the ilk. They are more well known for setting up slums for people on welfare or government assistance to live.

Question who is right?

HUD and the family. Though there is a no-pet policy, when it comes to an animal for medical purposes then the policy is null and void because we are talking about an animal for special purposes. To some this may not seem fair or right but this animal is for the better health of this child. Essentially this is like if the young girl was living in a high rise apartment and the elevator broke and the owners refused to fix it and instead told the girl's family to move or pay out of their own pocket to get it fixed.

Remember this animal is not in anyway shape or form a pet. It is a specially trained dog that one has to go through hell to get.

 

[brainslurper]

I think I would side with the landlord if he didn't offer them the option of paying more to keep the dog. It's fine to have a no pets policy, that is totally reasonable, but making money off it because someone needs a dog isn't.

 

[Kluge]

Assuming we're talking about Section 8 housing since HUD is involved, the owner agreed to accept government funding and is thus subject to all reasonable demands of his/her tenants, which basically translates into whatever the governing court feels is acceptable. The landlord will lose.

"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." Pets are commonly assumed to increase risk of property damage, whether it actually does regularly damage property or not. There's increased risk of the pet failing to make it outside due to owner negligence (or something internal wrong with the pet), the pet may shed, and/or attract and spread fleas throughout the building. It's unreasonable to disallow land-owners from making sensible rules about how their property's used. It's a very common practice in the US for renters (whether hotel-owners or slum-lords) to disallow animals to be in their buildings, usually to minimize risk of property destruction, though sometimes even for religious reasons. But again, because the land-owner likely accepts government funding, he's subject to more government rules.

 

[chiggerwood]

I think the landlord is being pretty reasonable. Having a pet can mean the potential for damage to the apartment, plus there's already a no pets allowed rule.

As someone who has a service animal himself (epilepsy) let say to you IT'S NOT A PET! it was prescribed by a doctor and is specially trained (they have to be) to be a service animal. The landlord is in the wrong on at least two different levels 1. IT'S NOT A PET! The little girl does not have it just because. Number 2. The law states that no one can deny a person a rental agreement or lease on account of the service animal and if they have a "No Pets" policy too bad.

 

[evilneko]

Assuming we're talking about Section 8 housing since HUD is involved, the owner agreed to accept government funding and is thus subject to all reasonable demands of his/her tenants, which basically translates into whatever the governing court feels is acceptable. The landlord will lose.

"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." Pets are commonly assumed to increase risk of property damage, whether it actually does regularly damage property or not. There's increased risk of the pet failing to make it outside due to owner negligence (or something internal wrong with the pet), the pet may shed, and/or attract and spread fleas throughout the building. It's unreasonable to disallow land-owners from making sensible rules about how their property's used. It's a very common practice in the US for renters (whether hotel-owners or slum-lords) to disallow animals to be in their buildings, usually to minimize risk of property destruction, though sometimes even for religious reasons. But again, because the land-owner likely accepts government funding, he's subject to more government rules.

Did you read the OP, or the article I linked to? The case would be the same regardless. Service animals are not considered pets legally.

 

[IronicBeet]

I think the landlord is being pretty reasonable. Having a pet can mean the potential for damage to the apartment, plus there's already a no pets allowed rule.

As someone who has a service animal himself (epilepsy) let say to you IT'S NOT A PET! it was prescribed by a doctor and is specially trained (they have to be) to be a service animal. The landlord is in the wrong on at least two different levels 1. IT'S NOT A PET! The little girl does not have it just because. Number 2. The law states that no one can deny a person a rental agreement or lease on account of the service animal and if they have a "No Pets" policy too bad.

Okay then, thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Kargathia]

Fascinating how complete judgements are passed out based on single words.

We don't know jack squat about any of the oh-so-many details that could change everything, and still they're happily quoted to prove points on both side of the spectrum.

Let's throw out a few examples:

- The landlord was offering them the option to pay extra. How much? It's never mentioned, but it can easily be anything from "minor fee to cover coping with dog hairs" to "extortionate".

Legally the size of the fee is completely irrelevant. If it's more than 0, it's against the law.

- Is this the kind of support animal that's extensively trained to perform a special task? It's said nowhere. The only thing flouted is "support dog", and I sincerely doubt the writer of the article is an expert on service dogs.
It might be specially trained to the point where it will never cause trouble, it might be the cutest puppy from the shelter. Who knows?

It's a specially trained emotional support dog. It isn't just some random puppy.

- Did the family move in with the dog, or was the dog prescribed when they already lived there for years? It's mentioned nowhere, but still I see assumptions brought up to serve as argument.
- Are we even sure that a dog in one apartment can cause an allergic neighbour to start having attacks? It sounds a bit far-fetched to me - even on the assumption that there could be somebody living there who needs hospitalization as soon as he sniffs a dog.

Legally this is irrelevant. Additionally, when they're willing to allow it as long as some fee is paid, clearly the well being of other tenants is not what they're concerned about.

- This debate doesn't only seem to be about the legal aspect, so of course I'm bringing up the aspects that influence the ethical side. It are the holes in the arguments I care about here.

- As I mentioned: the only thing said in the article is "support dog", and that doesn't say jack squat. It might be trained to perform practical tasks to assist her in day-to-day life, or help her in any way with her disease, or it might indeed be an emotional support dog, who for the record do not receive the same extensive training.

- The whole allergic neighbour thing has been used as an argument, so of course I'm questioning that when it's not exactly sure whether it makes sense.

Legally this probably comes down to whether the dog qualifies as medical assistance. If so then the landlord would have to make a pretty convincing case to win, as he's got both the fair housing, and the disabilities act stacked against him.