I'm renting a house in Las Vegas, NV from an acquaintance. Before signing the lease it was discussed in detail that the property was not going to be sold or allowed into foreclosure. Recently we were informed that they changed their minds, our lease will not renew and they want us to accommodate their showings of the property. In our lease it states that the landlord can have access to the property for repairs with 24 hours notice. It says nothing about potential buyers allowed into the property. Do I have to allow strangers into the home for this purpose? I have 4 dogs and am concerned about my liability with people coming into the property and also feel a lessened sense of security for my belongings. What does the law state? Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kellyj429

I'm renting a house in Las Vegas, NV from an aquaintance. Before signing the lease it was discussed in detail that the property was not going to be sold or allowed into forclosure. Recently we were informed that they changed their minds, our lease will not renew and they want us to accomodate their showings of the property. In our lease it states that the landlord can have access to the property for repairs with 24 hours notice. It says nothing about potential buyers allowed into the property. Do I have to allow strangers into the home for this purpose? I have 4 dogs and am concerned about my liability with people coming into the property and also feel a lessened sense of security for my belongings. What does the law state? Thank you.

---

The lease is a contract and all the terms and condition by law are contained in that lease. Discussions, verbal agreements are not bindin(unfortunately). I'm sure you realize now that the promise should have been reduced to writing and signed by both of you.

I say if it's silent (doesn't address) your situation you don't have to allow access.

What does the lease say about if/when you leave? Anything about showings for prospective tenants?

Of course, if you take a hard stand you will lose the landlord's cooperation (if you are on good terms). You may or may not care.

I would also be concerned about dogs/property/privacy/safety - you might also want to make some sort of "let's make a deal arrangement" if the landlord wants to negotiate. Maybe the last month's rent free?

The lease states that either party must give 60 days notice that the lease will terminate or it will automatically renew for 1 year. It says nothing about showing the property to prospective tenants or buyers. The only thing in writing regarding entering the property is in regards to allowing entry for needed repairs. In the last email that I received from the landlord today, they stated that the showings are going to take place one way or the other, whether we want to be accommodating or not. I do not feel that our lease allows this, but I need to know the law. We are beyond making deals. Our lease ends 9/30 and they are putting the property up for sale 7/1. If they are allowed to have prospective buyers enter the home is there at least a timeframe prior to the end of the lease that they are allowed to do so or could they have done this on day one. I appreciate any feedback. Thank you!

Have you tried to just tell them no they can't, and see what they say or do.
Put a sign up warning about the dogs on the door, view real estate agents will enter with dogs loose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Have you tried to just tell them no they can't, and see what they say or do.
Put a sign up warning about the dogs on the door, view real estate agents will enter with dogs loose.

---

That was my original response to them. Putting up a warning only opens you up to a lawsuit if someone gets bitten. It appears that whether stated in the lease or not, they can enter the premesis a "reasonable" number of times for inspection or showing to prospective buyers with 24 hours notice. The NV statutes do not define what is "reasonable"... once a week? once a month?. Grey area there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kellyj429

... Putting up a warning only opens you up to a lawsuit if someone gets bitten. ...

---

Oh. Really? How do you figure?

Absent anything in writing state law prevails:

Rights
The landlord has a right to enter the rented premises to inspect, make repairs or show the dwelling unit to prospective tenants or other interested parties. Except in emergencies, the tenant is entitled to at least 24 hours' notice that the landlord intends to enter and may limit the landlord's entry to normal business hours.

Read more: The Nevada Landlord-Tenant Laws The Nevada Landlord-Tenant Laws

So it looks like you are stuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Oh. Really? How do you figure?

---

I can only address NY but when I work a dog bite case a sign saying "Dangerous dog," "attack dog on premises," even "Beware off Dog," anything along those lines is the first thing I look for (and photograph). The thinking is that you put that sign up because you KNOW the dog is or could be dangerous.

Ask a NY Attorney -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I can only address NY but when I work a dog bite case a sign saying "Dangerous dog," "attack dog on premises," even "Beware off Dog," anything along those lines is the first thing I look for (and photograph). The thinking is that you put that sign up because you KNOW the dog is or could be dangerous.

Ask a NY Attorney -

---

Yes, and the dogowner / landowner could also be liable for failure to warn. That's the idea of such a sign. It established an "assumption of risk" defense.

Certainly, if a sign is present, the owner cannot say "I didn't know the dog was dangerous". But, with respect to such a defense, as the saying goes, "that dog won't hunt." In other words ignorance of the aggressive character of one's dog is not likely to be a viable defense anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Yes, and the dogowner / landowner could also be liable for failure to warn. That's the idea of such a sign. It established an "assumption of risk" defense.

Certainly, if a sign is present, the owner cannot say "I didn't know the dog was dangerous". But, with respect to such a defense, as the saying goes, "that dog won't hunt." In other words ignorance of the agressive character of one's dog is not likely to be a viable defense anyway.

---

We can open another thread or carry this into a private conversation but I'm telling you what I'm asked to do and document (and occasionally testify over). I have never worked a case where a "failure to warn" came into play. I HAVE worked cases where the "Beware" sign damned the Defendant.

What do the signs at my house say? "Dog on Premises." No more, no less.

In NY you MUST know that your dog had vicious propensities in order to have someone collect for pain and suffering. For that matter I spend a lot of time interviewing landlords who suddenly find themselves on the firing line for knowing a dog with "vicious propensities" lives on the property - IF they know. It's sort of like the first bite/attack is forgiven. Your dog shows his teeth at the mailman and then bites someone - you have a problem.

And, again, your experience is obviously different from mine and we are in different States BUT this is what I do and how I do it and how I'm directed to do it.