[RWuest]

We signed a year long lease, a lease that never stated one thing about pets, which excited me at first because I always wanted to get a dog. The upstairs tenants, and my neighbors all have dogs, but now the landlord is saying that my dog cannot be here any longer. What are my rights?

[rockinmommy]

In a landlord / tenant situation there are two sets of rules to take into consideration. The first is the lease. The second (which trumps the first) is your state's landlord / tenant laws. (You can find a link to yours in a sticky at the top of this forum.) If the lease and the law differ on any points, the law trumps the lease. But the lease can include things not stated in the law, as long as it doesn't conflict.

So, if your lease and your state laws don't say you can't have pets, then I see no reason why you would be in any kind of violation. That said, typically, landlords can amend the lease by giving the tenant the proper written notice, as long as it doesn't affect dates or dollar amounts stated in the lease. So if push comes to shove your landlord should be able to add a "no pets" clause.

I'm a little puzzled, I've never seen a lease that doesn't state NO PETS, unless there's a pet addendum or exclusion of some kind. Very sloppy on the landlord's part, and it sounds like they're realizing it after things have gotten out of control.

[froggy7]

I'm a little puzzled, I've never seen a lease that doesn't state NO PETS, unless there's a pet addendum or exclusion of some kind. Very sloppy on the landlord's part, and it sounds like they're realizing it after things have gotten out of control.

Hmm. I've always been under the impression that the default is "no pets", and the landlord generally has to specifically allow them. I don't know why I have that belief, but I have always looked for spots that specifically said that they allow them, not assumed that silence meant "yes".

[JudyKayTee]

In a landlord / tenant situation there are two sets of rules to take into consideration. The first is the lease. The second (which trumps the first) is your state's landlord / tenant laws. (You can find a link to yours in a sticky at the top of this forum.) If the lease and the law differ on any points, the law trumps the lease. But the lease can include things not stated in the law, as long as it doesn't conflict.

So, if your lease and your state laws don't say you can't have pets, then I see no reason why you would be in any kind of violation. That said, typically, landlords can amend the lease by giving the tenant the proper written notice, as long as it doesn't affect dates or dollar amounts stated in the lease. So if push comes to shove your landlord should be able to add a "no pets" clause.

I'm a little puzzled, I've never seen a lease that doesn't state NO PETS, unless there's a pet addendum or exclusion of some kind. Very sloppy on the landlord's part, and it sounds like they're realizing it after things have gotten out of control.

Sounds to me like the landlord isn't saying no dogs. The landlord is saying, "Not this dog."

I think if the dog is a problem, a danger, the subject of complaints (ranging from vicious propensities to the owner not cleaning up after the dog to excessive barking) the landlord isn't being discriminatory - the landlord is saying, "Not this particular dog."

See no violation on part of landlord.

I had a pet-friendly building and there were specific dogs (not breeds) I did not want there because the owners were irresponsible or the dogs were nasty (or even beyond nasty and I did not want to get sued).

[rockinmommy]

Hmm. i've always been under the impression that the default is "no pets", and the landlord generally has to specifically allow them. I don't know why I have that belief, but I have always looked for spots that specifically said that they allow them, not assumed that silence meant "yes".

I agree with you that that's the assumption. That would be my assumption, as well. But if it's not stated one way or the other in the lease, and the state laws don't weigh in on it (that's why I brought up the state laws) then the tenant wouldn't actually be violating anything. Legally, at this point, they could have the dog - in my opinion. But like I said, I think the landlord could easily rectify that by giving them 30 days notice to remove the animal. It would be an addendum to the lease.

I just can't believe the landlord is that remiss to not have NO PETS in the lease as the default and then go from there.

It just sounds like a fight brewing from what I can tell. The tenant should have told the LL they were considering getting a dog - they were glad to see that pets are OK, etc. And the LL should have stated to the tenant what their pet policy is. Both sides were remiss, I believe.

[rockinmommy]

Sounds to me like the landlord isn't saying no dogs. The landlord is saying, "Not this dog."

I think if the dog is a problem, a danger, the subject of complaints (ranging from vicious propensities to the owner not cleaning up after the dog to excessive barking) the landlord isn't being discriminatory - the landlord is saying, "Not this particular dog."

See no violation on part of landlord.

I had a pet-friendly building and there were specific dogs (not breeds) I did not want there because the owners were irresponsible or the dogs were nasty (or even beyond nasty and I did not want to get sued).

I agree that's a strong possibility. And unfortunately for this tenant (well, tenants everywhere, really) pet owners aren't a protected class, so this is one of the few areas where landlords can pick who and what they'll allow, or not.

I don't think the landlord is violating anything. I just think from a business standpoint he's incredibly remiss to leave it completely open on the lease like that. Just making a lot of extra work for himself.

Like everything else in landlord / tenant situations (and all of life) both sides should have made their wishes known in writing so this type of situation doesn't rear it's ugly head. I feel like I give my tenants so many rules and disclaimers anymore... but that way everyone is on the same page. If there are issues of misunderstandings down the road I can say, "Oh, look at that, we agreed to this in writing when you moved in" and it usually stops whatever the problem is.

[excon]

Hello:

It appears that your lease does NOT preclude your having a dog. It also appears that your landlord doesn't care what his lease said. I agree with mommy, there's a fight brewing.

Yes, you SHOULD have mentioned your desire to get a dog. However, because you didn't do so, does NOT diminish your rights. In the law, the person who WROTE the agreement has the onus to put the things in that HE wants in. The onus is NOT on you. Therefore, if you got sued for eviction, I believe you'd win.

However, if you want to stay, there may be a way you can. People who don't know the law (your landlord), try to buffalo people into thinking they DO know the law, because they SHOULD know the law. As soon as these people realize they are up against somebody who actually DOES know the law, they back down...

I would write your landlord a letter. In it, tell him that you are NOT in violation of your lease, and if he attempts to falsely evict you, you will sue him blind. Send your letter certified, return receipt requested. Send another copy by regular mail, and hand deliver another one.

I'm sure he'll go away with his tail between his legs. If he doesn't, sue him.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Hello:

It appears that your lease does NOT preclude your having a dog. It also appears that your landlord doesn't care what his lease said. I agree with mommy, there's a fight brewing.

Yes, you SHOULD have mentioned your desire to get a dog. However, because you didn't do so, does NOT diminish your rights. In the law, the person who WROTE the agreement has the onus to put the things in that HE wants in. The onus is NOT on you. Therefore, if you got sued for eviction, I believe you'd win.

However, if you want to stay, there may be a way you can. People who don't know the law (your landlord), try to buffalo people into thinking they DO know the law, because they SHOULD know the law. As soon as these people realize they are up against somebody who actually DOES know the law, they back down....

I would write your landlord a letter. In it, tell him that you are NOT in violation of your lease, and if he attempts to falsely evict you, you will sue him blind. Send your letter certified, return receipt requested. Send another copy by regular mail, and hand deliver another one.

I'm sure he'll go away with his tail between his legs. If he doesn't, sue him.

excon

I very respectfully disagree - I see the landlord not wanting THIS dog there and he/she is within his/her rights.

Even with a lease - your dog is a danger, out you go - you or the dog.

I am only addressing NYS, of course.

I knock on lots of landlord's doors and say, "You know that dog that lives in your apartment? Well - " And then I get the insurance info.

I think the landlord has a right to protect himself/herself -

Of course, it all comes down to why the dog is being asked to leave.

[LisaB4657]

If the lease does not prohibit pets, and if the state law does not say "no pets unless the landlord specifically permits them", then there is no prohibition on pets.

However, if the lease says anything like "the landlord reserves the right to make reasonable rules and regulations during the term of the lease", then this tenant is out of luck.

[JudyKayTee]

If the lease does not prohibit pets, and if the state law does not say "no pets unless the landlord specifically permits them", then there is no prohibition on pets.

However, if the lease says anything like "the landlord reserves the right to make reasonable rules and regulations during the term of the lease", then this tenant is out of luck.

Trying not to beat a dead horse here but does this mean as a landlord I'm "stuck" with a dangerous dog? I don't what the leases say and I don't have them here.

In fact, I think the apartments are sold (thank goodness) and I never want to think "tenants" again in my entire life. But that's a side issue.

This would also change the way I do business - I talk to the tenant first, the neighbors second, the landlord third - maybe the landlord is "stuck" with the dog - ? How does the landlord attempt to save himself/herself from liability - ? Or doesn't he/she?

And I, as a landlord, have no desire to be sued by either the tenant OR the person bitten by the tenant's dog.

Any thoughts?

[LisaB4657]

Trying not to beat a dead horse here but does this mean as a landlord I'm "stuck" with a dangerous dog? I don't what the leases say and I don't have them here.

Yep. Unless your lease has a clause that the tenant agrees not to do anything that will cause the landlord's insurance to be increased or create a dangerous condition, or that the landlord can make reasonable rules and regulations during the term of the lease, then you're stuck.

In fact, I think the apartments are sold (thank goodness) and I never want to think "tenants" again in my entire life. But that's a side issue.

Congratulations. :)

This would also change the way I do business - I talk to the tenant first, the neighbors second, the landlord third - maybe the landlord is "stuck" with the dog - ? How does the landlord attempt to save himself/herself from liability - ? Or doesn't he/she?

And I, as a landlord, have no desire to be sued by either the tenant OR the person bitten by the tenant's dog.

Any thoughts?

Any decent lease should have the clauses I mentioned above.

[excon]

Hello Lisa:

I knew you'd save the day. The key word, of course, is "reasonable".

Look, I love dogs, but I have to admit, I'm afraid of pit bulls or any of those other breeds like that. IF the landlord wants to preclude certain breeds thought to be dangerous (whether true or not true), I think he has the right to promulgate those rules - even during a tenancy - assuming he gave himself that right by including the terminology your mentioned in the lease.

However, the OP hasn't said it was the breed that clinched it or what. I'd really like to know.

If it's just that he decided not to have dogs any longer, (and has the above provision in the lease) then I think he CAN make these changes WITH 30 days written notice. I doubt he can make them retroactive so as to force the OP to get rid of his dog because he's about to make a "reasonable" new rule.

Am I close?

excon

[LisaB4657]

Hello Lisa:

Hello, Excon!

If it's just that he decided not to have dogs any longer, (and has the above provision in the lease) then I think he CAN make these changes WITH 30 days written notice. I doubt he can make them retroactive so as to force the OP to get rid of his dog because he's about to make a "reasonable" new rule.

Am I close?

Excon

Yes, the landlord can make new rules but must give reasonable advance written notice. And you're correct. The changes can't be retroactive.

I once represented a landlord who had an 850-unit complex. The lease said "no pets" in about 20 different places. But over a period of years the on-site property manager had allowed tenants to move in with pets. When the tenants started taking advantage (not cleaning up after them, getting 2, 3 or more pets at once) the landlord decided that enough was enough. The landlord sent out 3 day notices to end the violation or vacate and when the tenants refused I had to file suits for eviction. What a nasty situation! The judge was leaning towards not allowing the evictions due to the landlord's agent (the property manager) allowing the pets over the years, thereby negating the "no pets" provision. Before a verdict was rendered we reached a settlement with the tenants that they could keep their current pets but would not be allowed to get new ones.

[neonguy24]

Trying not to beat a dead horse here but does this mean as a landlord I'm "stuck" with a dangerous dog? I don't what the leases say and I don't have them here.

In fact, I think the apartments are sold (thank goodness) and I never want to think "tenants" again in my entire life. But that's a side issue.

This would also change the way I do business - I talk to the tenant first, the neighbors second, the landlord third - maybe the landlord is "stuck" with the dog - ? How does the landlord attempt to save himself/herself from liability - ? Or doesn't he/she?

And I, as a landlord, have no desire to be sued by either the tenant OR the person bitten by the tenant's dog.

Any thoughts?

You keep saying how the dog is dangerous. I see no problem having pets of any kind in an apartment unless there is complaints or state laws banning certain breeds or stuff like that. If there isn't any complaints then the dog should stay. I live in ontario canada and here as of 1996 the no pets allowed clause in the tennants act is void but people still say no pets.

[JudyKayTee]

you keep saying how the dog is dangerous. i see no problem having pets of any kind in an appartment unless there is complaints or state laws banning certain breeds or stuff like that. if there isnt any complaints then the dog should stay. i live in ontario canada and here as of 1996 the no pets allowed clause in the tennants act is void but people still say no pets.

Perhaps you should read what has been posted - the landlord didn't say NO dogs. The landlord said not THIS dog. One can only assume the landlord for whatever reason feels the dog is a threat.

That's why I "keep saying" the dog is dangerous. The landlord apparently also believes it is.

You have also reopened a thread from September 2008.