Question about apartment lease

[AlohaPolynesian]

Recently I moved into a new building and adopted a pet. Two days after having this dog, someone from the building complained that I had an "aggressive" dog. The dog was not aggressive, but DOES resemble a "pit bull" (while is, in fact, a Jack Russell Terrier/Boxer mix). Someone from the management office told me that I needed to remove the dog from my property, because it was a breed that isn't allowed, within 48 hours or else I would be subject to fines and/or eviction.

I went back to read my lease agreement and animal addendum and found no sign of any breed bans. The only restrictions regarding pets involve a weight limit and an additional fee. The only thing I did notice was that it says the building has a right to make reasonable changes to the agreement when done so in writing.

Now, what is considered a "reasonable" change? And do I have to agree to it since it is not what I signed in the first place? Regardless of the fact that this situation involves a dog, please let me know if you know the answer. This could be for anything - let's say they wanted to change the amount it costs to park in the garage or change the amount I pay for rent. How can they prove something to be a "reasonable" change?

Thanks in advance!

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Recently I moved into a new building and adopted a pet. Two days after having this dog, someone from the building complained that I had an "aggressive" dog. The dog was not aggressive, but DOES resemble a "pit bull" (while is, in fact, a Jack Russell Terrier/Boxer mix). Someone from the management office told me that I needed to remove the dog from my property, because it was a breed that isn't allowed, within 48 hours or else I would be subject to fines and/or eviction.

I went back to read my lease agreement and animal addendum and found no sign of any breed bans. The only restrictions regarding pets involve a weight limit and an additional fee. The only thing I did notice was that it says the building has a right to make reasonable changes to the agreement when done so in writing.

Now, what is considered a "reasonable" change? And do I have to agree to it since it is not what I signed in the first place? Regardless of the fact that this situation involves a dog, please let me know if you know the answer. This could be for anything - let's say they wanted to change the amount it costs to park in the garage or change the amount I pay for rent. How can they prove something to be a "reasonable" change?

Thanks in advance!

I don't see where the owners have provided a reasonable change in writing. One individual from the management office said something. That's not providing a reasonable change in writing. What's reasonable would be up to the applicable laws and/or judgement of a court in your state.

So no, I wouldn't get rid of the dog. Now, what I'd do next would depend upon several variables that I don't know about - I don't know the rental laws for your state, and that's a big one.

Also, I don't know WHO came and spoke with you. Was it the head of the office or just a flunkie who might have come over without the knowledge of anyone else in the office? If the rental laws in your state are tilted towards the renters, I'd probably pull out a copy of my rights as a renter and if anyone from the management office came back start quoting chapter and verse from it. In some states, I'd contact a state organization for renters. In other states, that are not so tilted towards the renters, I'd contact some rescue organizations to see if any of them could help with the legal status of contract law in this regards (You'd be surprised what kind of people volunteer for animal rescue work.) and stick to my guns (Politely) in refusing to pay any fines or get rid of my dog, based on a legal document signed by both parties that the other party is now refusing to honor. And I'd put that in writing.

 

[Sarah_Rose]

Honestly, I would think that "reasonable change in writing" would require the building to have notified all residents of this change. My FIL rents a condo close to his work (he has a long commute) and they recently changed the pet policy to "dogs must be under 25 lbs". This was a big change and required all residents to be notified and have a period of time to comply with the new regulation. The specific policy on lease regulation changes will vary from state to state, as far as what is reasonable. Since you only recently moved in, I would assume that the lease was current on all regulations at time of signing. Which means that your notice is not "reasonable change" but, "we decided we don't like your dog".

That said, I would inform the office in writing that you have examined your lease and have found nothing that excludes the two dominant breeds included in your pet's lineage (jack russell and boxer) and that you would like to see a copy of the building's pet regulations that includes a banned breed list. If they cannot produce a list that includes these at least one of the two breeds on it, I would inform the office (in writing) that you will not be removing the pet from the premises because you have not committed a lease violation. It will help if you have a document from the person/rescue you got the dog from (even a Petfinder printout) that states your pet's breeds. If they do produce this list (that includes jack russell and boxer, and not just pit bull!), you will have a harder time - but I would still argue that since you only recently moved in, the most recent regulations should be in your lease.

Good luck. I'm so sorry to hear this is happening. Crazy pet restrictions are one of the primary reasons that we bought our house (closing on it next week!). We have two German Shepherds and though our apartment building has no breed restrictions and my dogs are not aggressive and are actually very friendly (and go with my husband and I to work at an office every day!), we've still had a lot of problems with people being prejudiced against their breed because they look like an "aggressive dog".

 

[SandrA9810]

Generally if there's a rule change like "no dogs over 35lbs", residents that are already living there are grandfathered in under their current lease.

I would look up renter's law in your state, and defend yourself. No need to give up your dog this soon. Too many people are just idiots when it comes to breeds and "aggressiveness" I've met worse non aggressive breeds than aggressive breeds...

 

[Sparx]

What struck me odd is that they never asked you the breed of the dog, yet said its a "banned breed."

 

[golfgal]

What an odd combination of dogs. Do you have DNA proof that the dog is a boxer/JRT mix? The problem is that most insurance companies won't cover pit bulls or other aggressive dogs so the landlord risks losing insurance coverage by having one on site. I think if you want to keep the dog you need to get proof of it's origins.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

A landlord wouldn't be responsible for the insurance of pet owner in terms of liability, the pet owner would be. I agree some breeds are hard to insure on a liability policy, but that would be born by the pet owner. That said, EVERYONE who rents should have renters insurance to protect their property and if you have a dog you should have a large liability policy (either directly on the renters or through an umbrella) in case something should ever happen.

 

[golfgal]

A landlord wouldn't be responsible for the insurance of pet owner in terms of liability, the pet owner would be. I agree some breeds are hard to insure on a liability policy, but that would be born by the pet owner. That said, EVERYONE who rents should have renters insurance to protect their property and if you have a dog you should have a large liability policy (either directly on the renters or through an umbrella) in case something should ever happen.

Not true, yes, the pet owner would assume primary responsibility but if the landlord allowed someone to have a dangerous breed dog to live there they assume some liability as well. On top of which, it would make renting other apartments more difficult if they had dangerous breed dogs on site.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think, unfortunately, you're in murky waters.

Even if you can prove lineage/genetics, it would still be a lengthy, expensive and possibly futile fight to keep the dog where you are.

It seems to me your two options are to return the dog, or move.

As an owner of German Shepherds, I don't say this lightly. But when you're in a situation like this, you need to use common sense as far as what type of dog you choose. In an apartment building, you have a lot of people and families living in a very small area. They don't know what kind of owner you are, how the dog is (and neither do you, for that matter, to be honest - there may have been a reason he was in the shelter and his personality may evolve once he's comfortable in his new home even if he's now, you just don't know) and may have well founded fears of dogs for whatever reason.

By choosing a dog that resembles a dangerous type dog, you, unfortunately, invited concerns. I would not expect people in the same building to be very happy if I brought my dog to live there, either (regardless of whether she's a good dog or not). As Sarah_Rose mentioned, people are afraid of GSDs and other large dogs, and that has to be respected (if you want to live in peace and harmony). When we were renting, we did once move because of our dog. We went from an apartment building to a two family house with a yard so we could have our dog with us (he'd been with my parents before that).

I do agree that if the owners of the building allow you to keep the dog and something happens, they will share liability with you. And chances are, they have more than you do, so they will be the ones to pay the highest price. They simply cannot let you keep the dog, IMO.

I hope you can find a way to work it out.

 

[JimmyPicker]

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

You just moved in and already you're having problems. No matter who wins or loses this particular battle, you're still surrounded by these people everyday.

You're either going to be peeved because they made you get rid of your dog or pay fines or pay for a DNA test or whatever ends up happening.

Or they're going to be peeved because you made a big deal of it or still have the dog that they don't want there or whatever.

 

[FireDancer]

If you indicated on the lease that you had no pet you have now also made a change to the lease. Since the security deposit is affected by the presence of a pet I would imagine that there was a place on the lease the asked if you had one and then entered the proper security deposit. I believe that since you made a change in circumstances that is counter to the lease it is now voidable by the landlord. What should happen is a new lease is signed which includes the pet and the additional security deposit and the landlord can at that time also make any amendments they want. If one of the amendments is you dog is forbidden you have the option of signing the lease or not and then moving.

 

[AlohaPolynesian]

Thank you all for your help. I've decided to write a polite letter to the office and ask them to help me understand why they can enforce this restriction. I agree with most of you when you say you wouldn't want to upset the office and have to live in an awkward situation because of everything that happened. I will let you know what happens! Thanks again!

 

[mel&me]

If you indicated on the lease that you had no pet you have now also made a change to the lease. Since the security deposit is affected by the presence of a pet I would imagine that there was a place on the lease the asked if you had one and then entered the proper security deposit. I believe that since you made a change in circumstances that is counter to the lease it is now voidable by the landlord. What should happen is a new lease is signed which includes the pet and the additional security deposit and the landlord can at that time also make any amendments they want. If one of the amendments is you dog is forbidden you have the option of signing the lease or not and then moving.

You are 100% right, My inlaws own a complex if the lease was signed, you have no pets and sign it accordingly, then got a dog after, you just changed things, the lease can be voided by the landlord. I know my in laws have it specifically stated on their leases about pets and what type of animal. They also do have a list of animals not allowed. If someone comes to look at an apartment and has an animal on the list they are SOL.

 

[happygirl]

Thank you all for your help. I've decided to write a polite letter to the office and ask them to help me understand why they can enforce this restriction. I agree with most of you when you say you wouldn't want to upset the office and have to live in an awkward situation because of everything that happened. I will let you know what happens! Thanks again!

I'm not sure I would write a letter you only have 48hours. I would either go there or call. You don't want to take any chances on them starting eviction or setting a fee

 

[mel&me]

I wanted to add I don't know what Ohio laws are but do know that a couple years ago, inlaws had an individual bring in an animal on the not allowed list, the had the choice to get rid of it or eviction. Tenant choose to fight in court said they had a lease, 2 months later and many $'s less the tenant was evicted. Lease was deemed void because it was signed they had no pets and also brought one in on the no list. I saw this happen and heard all about it while it was happening, inlaws venting there anger over it. I should also say, they did not want to go through any of it, They just did not allows certain animals for insurance and damage reasons. They would have preferred to keep apartment rented. Tenant choose not to comply.

 

[wvjules]

When I lived in an apartment I had no pets when I moved in. Several months later I adopted two kittens. In my lease it stated that I had 30 days to notify them of pets and pay the additional pet deposit. If OPs lease reads the same then she has not violated or changed the lease.

 

[mel&me]

When I lived in an apartment I had no pets when I moved in. Several months later I adopted two kittens. In my lease it stated that I had 30 days to notify them of pets and pay the additional pet deposit. If OPs lease reads the same then she has not violated or changed the lease.

I read this and the the lease I was taking about had a spot that also said something similar. But I believe theirs say within 7 days. They charge a fee for pets, and people tend to not report any sooner than they have too, They had one tenant that had a pet for almost 6 months and when confronted they said they just got it. Other residents confirmed it had been considerably longer, but they got away with it.

 

[wvjules]

I read this and the the lease I was taking about had a spot that also said something similar. But I believe theirs say within 7 days. They charge a fee for pets, and people tend to not report any sooner than they have too, They had one tenant that had a pet for almost 6 months and when confronted they said they just got it. Other residents confirmed it had been considerably longer, but they got away with it.

What I meant to say is that if I signed my lease on June 1 then got a pet on November 1 then I had 30 days from November 1 to notify them of the pet; not 30 days from the original signing of the lease.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Not true, yes, the pet owner would assume primary responsibility but if the landlord allowed someone to have a dangerous breed dog to live there they assume some liability as well. On top of which, it would make renting other apartments more difficult if they had dangerous breed dogs on site.

Very unlikely it would stand up in court.

Side note, it's not the breed that is dangerous, and I'm a firm believer in that. Sure some may be more apt to learn aggressive behavior, but it's training and environment that make a dog dangerous.

 

[golfgal]

Very unlikely it would stand up in court.

Side note, it's not the breed that is dangerous, and I'm a firm believer in that. Sure some may be more apt to learn aggressive behavior, but it's training and environment that make a dog dangerous.

Sorry, but it will and has stood up in court but that isn't the issue-the issue is that the landlord WILL lose his insurance coverage if he allows dangerous breads, period. It may be well and true that breeds aren't dangerous and dogs are however, it is illegal to discriminate in the insurance world so they have to do everything by class so ALL Pit Bulls or ALL German Shepherds are considered dangerous breads (or whatever dogs they have listed).