Landlord sued for disallowing medical pets

[ace_of_something]

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?

 

[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.

 

[lacktheknack]

Good God, let the poor little disabled girl who'll never have a normal life have a puppy. It's the least we can do for her.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Not the landlord, that's for fucking certain.

 

[Dags90]

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.

In many cases, "no pets allowed" rules don't apply to medical animals like seeing eye dogs. I'm not sure whether or not that would also apply to a "medically prescribed" emotional support dog, but that's for the courts to decide. I have a hunch that the landlord will lose.

 

[Niccolo]

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.

In many cases, "no pets allowed" rules don't apply to medical animals like seeing eye dogs. I'm not sure whether or not that would also apply to a "medically prescribed" emotional support dog, but that's for the courts to decide. I have a hunch that the landlord will lose.

It's some landlord up against a terminally ill girl and her puppy. No judge on earth could rule in favour of the landlord and survive the shitstorm that would hit within seconds.


In my opinion... well, I can see the landlord's reasons - pets can be damaging. But honestly? Medical pets (I'd love to see the face of the first doctor that wrote that sort of prescription!) generally are deemed necessary. It'd be like saying a kid taking ritalin wasn't allowed in the apartment.

 

[BabyRaptor]

I, um...Hrm.

It does say that she could pay more and stay there. He's not out-and-out barring the woman from getting the dog. That will probably be his legal loophole.

My question is with the meaning of "medically prescribed." Did the doctor suggest that getting a dog might help the child, or is this some sort of therapy? If it's something the doctor can prove that the child would actually benefit from, I can see it.

Either way, it's a dick move. But so is the lady suing. It's not like the guy is throwing her out...She has the option to pay the fee and continue with their collective lives.

 

[ace_of_something]

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.

In many cases, "no pets allowed" rules don't apply to medical animals like seeing eye dogs. I'm not sure whether or not that would also apply to a "medically prescribed" emotional support dog, but that's for the courts to decide. I have a hunch that the landlord will lose.

It's some landlord up against a terminally ill girl and her puppy. No judge on earth could rule in favour of the landlord and survive the shitstorm that would hit within seconds.


In my opinion... well, I can see the landlord's reasons - pets can be damaging. But honestly? Medical pets (I'd love to see the face of the first doctor that wrote that sort of prescription!) generally are deemed necessary. It'd be like saying a kid taking ritalin wasn't allowed in the apartment.

Medical pets are still pets that damage property. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard but I think the landlord is right. The lease, i'm sure, says 'absolutely no pets' (or at least dogs) not 'only certain kinds of pets.' All the reasons a landlord would put 'no pets' on the agreement, such as property damage, allergen control, etc are still true even if it's a therapy pet.

I can't help but think, part of the reason there is a stink is because it's a very small town and their aren't a lot of options for them elsewhere.
If they tried that even in the nearby city (i wanna say it's about an hour's drive from) of Ceder Rapids (about 125,000) they'd say "that sucks move somewhere else if you don't like it"

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Medical pets are still pets that damage property. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard but I think the landlord is right. The lease, i'm sure, says 'absolutely no pets' (or at least dogs) not 'only certain kinds of pets.' All the reasons a landlord would put 'no pets' on the agreement, such as property damage, allergen control, etc are still true even if it's a therapy pet.

I can't help but think, part of the reason there is a stink is because it's a very small town and their aren't a lot of options for them elsewhere.
If they tried that even in the nearby city (i wanna say it's about an hour's drive from) of Ceder Rapids (about 125,000) they'd say "that sucks move somewhere else if you don't like it"

Actually, having worked in real estate and learning the lingo, the terminology for 'No Pets Allowed' is only up to recreational pets. Due to the pet being a Disability Pet, the legality of either making the disabled either pay more or not allowing is grounds for lawsuit. City, town, small village does not matter. Now if the Disability Pet was a High Risk animal such as a Pit Bull or Rottweiler, then yes, due to the nature of the dog as a potential risk to the surrounding people, the owner 'might' have legal rights to disbar the disabled person.

 

[Ghosting 7]

As far as the eye can see, the landlord is trying to make the policies stand. Just because the kids have medical pets at their side, doesn't excuse them from having animals around that can do property damage.

I for one, however.. think the landlord should look closer into the case. These two kids, don't just have a cold. They have a pretty serious illness that inflicts them enough to need pets to aid them. I think that's a good enough reason to shoo off those policies now, eh?

 

[chowderface]

I bet you guys who are on the landlord's side think people with clinical depression need to "just snap out of it". Doctors don't prescribe emotional support pets just on a whim like they do Ritalin. Pets are fucking expensive, and what's more, the doctor doesn't see one red cent of that money, so they literally have no ulterior motive to prescribe one unless they think the patient really needs it. Ergo, a medically prescribed emotional support pet ought to be classed as a service animal, which is exempt from no-pet policies.

 

[Rawne1980]

In the UK we have a lot of landlords that have "no pet" policies on their properties.

Dogs aren't the quietest of animals anyway. They can be quite destructive.

A landlord is well within his rights to set whatever policies he likes on his own property.

In the UK not many landlords with a "no pet" policy would bend it. If it's an apartment block with that policy then you've got no chance in hell of a landlord OR judge bending it.

Then again this is the UK, we don't sue every fucker we see.

 

[likalaruku]

Legally, I think the landlord will win. In this country it's not about who's right, it's about who's lawyer can argue best. The family will probably be evicted on top of it.

They should have either moved or kept the puppy a secret. I had 2 cats in a no pets apartment for 3 years.

 

[Radelaide]

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.

In many cases, "no pets allowed" rules don't apply to medical animals like seeing eye dogs. I'm not sure whether or not that would also apply to a "medically prescribed" emotional support dog, but that's for the courts to decide. I have a hunch that the landlord will lose.

It's some landlord up against a terminally ill girl and her puppy. No judge on earth could rule in favour of the landlord and survive the shitstorm that would hit within seconds.


In my opinion... well, I can see the landlord's reasons - pets can be damaging. But honestly? Medical pets (I'd love to see the face of the first doctor that wrote that sort of prescription!) generally are deemed necessary. It'd be like saying a kid taking ritalin wasn't allowed in the apartment.

Medical pets are still pets that damage property. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard but I think the landlord is right. The lease, i'm sure, says 'absolutely no pets' (or at least dogs) not 'only certain kinds of pets.' All the reasons a landlord would put 'no pets' on the agreement, such as property damage, allergen control, etc are still true even if it's a therapy pet.

I can't help but think, part of the reason there is a stink is because it's a very small town and their aren't a lot of options for them elsewhere.
If they tried that even in the nearby city (i wanna say it's about an hour's drive from) of Ceder Rapids (about 125,000) they'd say "that sucks move somewhere else if you don't like it"

As a landlord with tenants in a property, if the child required the pet (as she does), I have no grounds to deny her the pet as it's a medical necessary animal. The same would be done if a blind person moved into my unit, also.

Now, I tend to agree with you if it's "Absolutely No Pets", but as this is an special circumstance, you can't say that the landlord is in the right for banning the dog. In my past experience, the most destructive things in a property aren't pets but the tenants themselves. The pet would also be specially trained.

FYI, my building has a no-pet policy, too.

 

[QuantumT]

Just fyi, in the US disability animals don't count as pets, they count as medical devices. So legally, this is equivalent to charging more because someone is in a wheelchair.

The landlord will go down in flames.

 

[Fluse]

wtf at all the "dogs damage property" comments? Theres a huge diffrence between dogs in terms of how they behave, and how large they are!

Its not like the girl will have an emotional support pitbull or rottweiler.

 

[farscythe]

meh i think the land lord is probably in the right from a legal point of view.
that said.. at least over here the vast majority of land lords will allow medical pets

so yea.. whilst the land lord isn't likely to win any humanitarian awards for this, i dont think he'll lose the court case.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

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.

yes. i dont think he's breaking any laws by doing this. i say think because i live in UK.

Just fyi, in the US disability animals don't count as pets, they count as medical devices. So legally, this is equivalent to charging more because someone is in a wheelchair.

The landlord will go down in flames.

they dont? well then i think he isnt right in doing this. not sure if this is illegal though.

obligatory dont-seem-like-a-wanker notice:
this is still a massive dick move from the landlord.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

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.