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.
A shining example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
It's actually well established that breed restrictions are reasonable basis for denial of an accommodation if there is a legit reason for it (say for instance, an insurance policy that will not allow pitbulls).
No, it's really not.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
See above.
So for the sake of argument, let's say she does it anyway and the landlord decides they want to do something about it. What right of action would the landlord have?
Eh, nice of you to inadvertently advertise your services to someone who wants to game the disability system.
I'm not a landlord, so I have no clue what I would do. I do have one idea, but it would not be polite to say it here on CD forums.
I see you are in the camp of the people who try to stretch the limits of decency and "the law" so you can find a way to get around the right thing to do. How about that? your answer to me shows what kind of unethical law you attempt to practice IF you are even a lawyer. Oh scuse me I better watch what I say or you will send "the law" out after me to sue you for defamation of shady character.
Eh, nice of you to inadvertently advertise your services to someone who wants to game the disability system.
I'm not a landlord, so I have no clue what I would do. I do have one idea, but it would not be polite to say it here on CD forums.
I see you are in the camp of the people who try to stretch the limits of decency and "the law" so you can find a way to get around the right thing to do. How about that? your answer to me shows what kind of unethical law you attempt to practice IF you are even a lawyer. Oh scuse me I better watch what I say or you will send "the law" out after me to sue you for defamation of shady character.
There's nothing unethical going on here. The OP has a lease that does not preclude her from owning pets. The simple fact of the matter...regardless of how you or others feel about it...is that she would have a very solid legal basis for acquiring the dog and there is only a very slim chance that a judge would side with the landlord.
I wasn't the one who recommended going the companion animal route. That was someone else.
1.* There's nothing unethical going on here. The OP has a lease that does not preclude her from owning pets. The simple fact of the matter...regardless of how you or others feel about it...is that she would have a very solid legal basis for acquiring the dog and there is only a very slim chance that a judge would side with the landlord.
2. I wasn't the one who recommended going the companion animal route. That was someone else.
1. Please cite cases you have won based on this premise. If inapplicable, please cite cases where such an action has been brought and the judge has ruled in favor of the animal owner.
2. Blatant unadulterated attorney doublespeak:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
I only found one that didn't want to cooperate (and subsequently pissed me off with their snotty attitude in the process) and I did the same thing people are advising the OP to do. It took one phone call and about 15 minutes of my time to have a letter from one of my college's psychologists (who also happened to be a good friend) prescribing me a "companion animal" to "help alleviate stress".
There's nothing unethical going on here. The OP has a lease that does not preclude her from owning pets. The simple fact of the matter...regardless of how you or others feel about it...is that she would have a very solid legal basis for acquiring the dog and there is only a very slim chance that a judge would side with the landlord.
I wasn't the one who recommended going the companion animal route. That was someone else.
if the shoe fits.... anyone who does not dissuade someone from fraud and/or gives information for the purpose of another one who may use such information to defraud, is also a participant in such fraud.
The fact of the matter is that the OP ASKED the landlord about pets, and she did NOT say yes. I would think that would be in the landlord's favor, unless the OP were to later claim the conversation never happened. The issue was addressed and she did not respond favorably. In addition, when the issue was addressed, the OP never claimed to need any type of service dog. Now all of a sudden after she failed to say yes, he needs one?
Why even try to "game the system," anyway? You're setting yourself up for, potentially, a very strained relationship with the landlord, who might then give extra scrutiny to everything you do, and the condition of the apartment on move out.
As others have said, landlords aren't required to renew fixed term leases. She could, at the end of the lease, institute a no pet policy. She would likely consider the OP to be a dishonest or hostile tenant and not want to rent to him anyway, nevermind the dog. There's nothing illegal about that unless he happens to be a member of some protected class and claims she's denying him housing due to that status. I know of no law which says landlords have no discretion when it comes to choosing tenants.
1. Please cite cases you have won based on this premise. If inapplicable, please cite cases where such an action has been brought and the judge has ruled in favor of the animal owner.
I'm not aware of any cases where this particular issue has been brought to trial in Florida where a court opinion would be published, as this is a matter of material fact and thus basis for dismissal.
The fact that I have challenged proponents of your position to explain what position they would bring a suit under (the most remedial part of a lawsuit) and thus far no one has even attempted to do so should be a pretty big clue to the fatal deficiency of your position.
if the shoe fits.... anyone who does not dissuade someone from fraud and/or gives information for the purpose of another one who may use such information to defraud, is also a participant in such fraud.
The fact of the matter is that the OP ASKED the landlord about pets, and she did NOT say yes. I would think that would be in the landlord's favor, unless the OP were to later claim the conversation never happened. The issue was addressed and she did not respond favorably. In addition, when the issue was addressed, the OP never claimed to need any type of service dog. Now all of a sudden after she failed to say yes, he needs one?
The problem with that theory is that it essentially grants the landlord the unmitigated power to interpret and retroactively alter their own leases.
I'm not aware of any cases where this particular issue has been brought to trial in Florida where a court opinion would be published, as this is a matter of material fact and thus basis for dismissal.
The fact that I have challenged proponents of your position to explain what position they would bring a suit under (the most remedial part of a lawsuit) and thus far no one has even attempted to do so should be a pretty big clue to the fatal deficiency of your position.
In other words, you really don't have a clue and have no grounds upon which to base your assertion. 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 pet 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. 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.
Last edited by STT Resident; 09-12-2014 at 04:25 PM..
The problem with that theory is that it essentially grants the landlord the
unmitigated power to interpret and retroactively alter their own leases.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
But if it IS a bad thing...
the inverse, allowing a tenant to expand undefined terms of that lease, is as well.
Which is the real point here: what is a reasonable and appropriate DEGREE of power?
Not some moot court theory on how it might be argued... but the reality.
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.
