Our leasing agent withheld from us knowledge that our tenants had pets (a cat & two dogs) and negotiated the lease which clearly states no animals without prior written consent of landlords. The tenants had disclosed this information to the agent, yet still signed the lease--so they are technically in violation. At this point, we feel we must accept the tenants who are already settled in; our grievance is with the agent with whom we were very clear about not wanting dogs.

Our question is: In addition to this being highly unethical, was this an illegal action on the part of the agent? What might our options be at this point? Thanks for any advice.

Well, you may have a case against the agent and you could sue him / her for any damages you experience as a result of the pets presence. I would think that you'd have to wait until the people move out to tally the damages, though. And since it sounds like it was a verbal agreement the agent may very well claim they had no knowledge of the pets and the judge may believe him / her.

Also, if I understand correctly, the tenants have a lease that states no pets, with no addemdums? And they have pets? I don't care who gave them what kind of permission. They would be in violation of my lease. I would present them with a pet addendum with all the appropriate fees and rent increases, etc, or they could / would be evicted. Does your lease not state that the contents of the lease are total and complete - something to that effect - and that any verbal agreements with you or any of your agents are invalid?

Hello, and thanks for your response. It was actually more than a verbal agreement. The tenants included the pets on an application that they submitted to the agent, but the agent never sent to us. I now have a copy of that application. But yes, the tenants signed the lease. We already have 2-months deposit, which according to California Civil Code is the legal amount. We had negotiated the rent down two hundred dollars based on our belief that they had no pets and would leave a small footprint on the property. First of all, we had no intention of considering applicants with dogs (we'd indicated cats were ok), secondly, even if we had, we would never have reduced the rent.

I've gotten some resistance from the agent's branch manager--reducing the problem to "well it seems all were missing here is a pet deposit" rather than our legal right to make an informed choice about who lives in our house. We are now at the point where the manager is offering a $500 refund on the fee we paid.

I guess my question to you, or any one out there familiar with CA real estate law, is do I accept the $500? If not, to which agency would I file a grievance against this agent to place her libel for possible damages? Thanks again!

Do you have a written agreement between yourselves and their agency? And in it does it state your requirements for the rental of that specific property including the "no dogs" policy? Is so, then she's clearly in breach of that agreement and like I said earlier, I beleve you could sue for damages if / when they occur. If you have no written agreement with her / her agency that includes the "no dogs" requirement then you'll just come down to a customer service issue more than anything. I believe you'd still have a case against her, but it would be harder to prove.

Also, does your agreement with them include you personally reviewing and approving applications? I think that could come into play, too.

I don't know about accepting the $500. I think a lot would depend on what they "call" it when they give it to you. If it's noted specifically WHY you're being given the refund then it may be considered as "covering" the first $500 in damages if / when they occur. I think it would be up to a Judge's interpretation.

Also, I still think you have a right to take this up with the tenants. I realize, now, that the tenants included the dogs on their application, but did they still proceed to sign the "no pets" lease? If so, they're still in violation. Have you observed the property since they moved in? Does it appear that damage is occurring? If it's not, I'd pursue a pet fee (not deposit - fee) and let them be. If their pets are causing damage you have the right to do something about it. Even IF they signed a pet addendum they always say something about the pet not causing damage.

Are you going to continue to use these agents as your poperty managers? I wouldn't, in my opinion. But if you plan to or not may weigh into my decision to take the $500.

Thanks again. No the agreement was not written about no dogs, though all the ads said cats only. The manager is calling the $500 "non-refundable", but she has failed to clarify that in her latest email though I specifically asked. Non-refundable back to the agent or the branch office (as in, this is not a "pet deposit" that then I have to refund to them if there is no damage)? If so, I will consider accepting. I do not intend to respond until I get some legal advice at this point. I consider her latest response--failure to answer a direct question--as slightly hostile.

And yes, regardless of whether it's on the application, the tenants signed the lease. We have to bring it up with them, I just want advice on how & what to ask for--and I no longer trust advice coming from the realty office we used.

This agent was for leasing only, not managing the property. We only got the applicant's credit report, which was very good. They are home owners themselves relocating temporarily, so there was no rental history to investigate. I had employment verification. I asked the agent if there was anything else I needed to know, she said no. She willfully withheld then negotiated the lease allowing both parties to sign--the tenants are, of course, culpable...

Anyway, you've given me a lot to think about. I will get specific advice from a professional versed in California law. Thank you!