Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words, you really don't have a clue and have no grounds upon which to base your assertion.
You're right. I have no basis to base my assertion that a court would not enforce a court a contract provision which is...not in the contract.
In fact, I've heard that is all the rage these days, with courts allowing people to just make things up as they go along now.
Quote:
Were I a LL in this case and the tenant brought in a dog under these circumstances I would, if absolutely necessary (i.e. if tenant refused to remove the dog and would not peacefully quit the premises if unwilling to do so), file for eviction and provide proof that the tenant approached me about having a dog, I was non-committal, etc. and had I agreed to allow the premises to house a dog this would have been spelled out in my lease agreement and an additional poet deposit would have been required. I would also have to hand several witnesses if necessary to verify that I was always reluctant to have tenants with pets - etc. etc. etc. There is no "fatal deficiency" in my position and I'm also confident that I would prevail.
Awesome. So then tell us, specifically, under what grounds you would seek to evict. We've already established that breach of contract is not an avenue for you as the lease does not prohibit the keeping of pets, so what alternate method would you use?
Quote:
Despite your other assertion (and you never responded to my question) that a landlord cannot refuse to extend a lease after the end of the original term, I wouldn't renew the lease either.
Yes, and it is plainly there for all to see what certain posts have said. No amount of slick lawyer double speak can hide that fact. In fact, it hurts people like the landlord, and anyone who tries such things, as these things can bite you in the behind one day because of flirting with bullying and fraudulent and crying waah waahhh wahhh i cant get a doggie coz mean ol landlord wont let me but i think i will threaten to break my lease becaause of some handy loophole that i can find and/or some attorney wanna be who is helping me meet that goal.
I feel sorry for the doggie who was rescued and now may have to go back to the shelter if the landlord decides to enforce no doggies allowed. Poor doggie, i feel sorry for it.
I cannot teach/make someone understand personal responsibility, ethics, values and character and morals to someone whomever that may be who is trying to find loopholes in the law, who would take advantage of a "nice" but naive landlord, and/or who suggests that they can get someone to write a letter scamming the disability system by writing that healthy person needs a service dog/companion animal. Whomever that might be.
1. We've already established that breach of contract is not an avenue for you as the lease does not prohibit the keeping of pets, so what alternate method would you use?
2. See Ultrarunner's post @ number 43.
1. "We" have not since I disagree with your hypothesis.
2. The post had to to do with service animals. Your assertion is that, "Maybe (depends on the state...some take a very dim view of landlord's refusing to extend leases because they didn't get their way) but would give the tenant what they wanted regardless." A term lease is a term lease and a LL is under no legal obligation to renew once the term has expired.
1. "We" have not since I disagree with your hypothesis.
Ok, so you're suggesting here that you could proceed on a breach of contract claim? Explain how you would do that with a lease not containing the no pets clause.
Quote:
2. The post had to to do with service animals. Your assertion is that, "Maybe (depends on the state...some take a very dim view of landlord's refusing to extend leases because they didn't get their way) but would give the tenant what they wanted regardless." A term lease is a term lease and a LL is under no legal obligation to renew once the term has expired.
You're suggesting refusing to renew a lease out of retaliation. That is illegal in some (not all) jurisdictions, including the jurisdiction Ultrarunner is in.
Ok, so you're suggesting here that you could proceed on a breach of contract claim? Explain how you would do that with a lease not containing the no pets clause.
You're suggesting refusing to renew a lease out of retaliation. That is illegal in some (not all) jurisdictions, including the jurisdiction Ultrarunner is in.
On the first point for breach of contract and explaining exactly as I posted.
No, I'm saying that a landlord is not legally obligated to renew a lease upon its expiration. A LL does not have to give a reason for non renewal of a term lease.
On the first point for breach of contract and explaining exactly as I posted.
You haven't explained anything. You've been kicking around vague and general statements but have not (obviously because you cannot) explained specifically what basis you would argue in a suit.
Allow me to help you with some simple questions for you to answer.
- Would you pursue an eviction on the grounds that the tenant has breached the contract?
- Stipulating that the lease does not contain a no pets provision, which provision of the lease would you allege that the tenant breached?
- If not pursuing an action on breach of contract, what common law doctrine, theory or other applicable method would you use?
Quote:
No, I'm saying that a landlord is not legally obligated to renew a lease upon its expiration. A LL does not have to give a reason for non renewal of a term lease.
And I'm telling you that what you are advocating is considered retaliatory conduct and illegal in many states, including mine which has an anti-retaliatory provision included in our landlord-tenant statutes.
Let me address this one further, just for the sake of things.
Quote:
Were I a LL in this case and the tenant brought in a dog under these circumstances I would, if absolutely necessary (i.e. if tenant refused to remove the dog and would not peacefully quit the premises if unwilling to do so), file for eviction and provide proof that the tenant approached me about having a dog, I was non-committal, etc. I would also have to hand several witnesses if necessary to verify that I was always reluctant to have tenants with pets
And this would do you no good because this is no way forms a contract, nor would it supersede the already signed contract in part or in whole.
Quote:
and had I agreed to allow the premises to house a dog this would have been spelled out in my lease agreement and an additional poet deposit would have been required.
But the lease doesn't spell it out. Clearly, there is no provision in the OP's lease prohibiting a pet or requiring landlord approval of a pet. It is, apparently, completely silent on the issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
