Quote:

---

Those of you doing leasing, how are you handling it?

---

Once I hear that language, I stop responding.

I do not fall for the sham ... and then tell them their credit is too low. It always works b/c emotional support credit scores are always sub 600.

If the owner provides documentation, you MAY be required to allow the ESA, depending on the type of property you own/rent. You may not charge extra, but you can charge for damages.

An actual trained service animal falls under ADA. You can charge for any damages after the fact, but you can't charge extra up front or each month. You may not charge for fur or dander cleanup.

There is no registry for either type of animal. You may ask what task the service animal performs, but you may not ask what the owner's disability is.

Yes, it's a racket; my daughter has a trained service dog, and it frustrates her to no end when people bring their aggressive, reactive pets everywhere with them; or when business owners tell her she can't come in; or try to charge her a pet fee at hotels; or when people make snide remarks to her in public about her dog being a pet, etc.

I got my license doing house hunting for college students in BCS circa 2009 or so. Still do a bit of leasing. IMO, the biggest change in tenant's attitudes from 15 years ago to today is their willingness to be "sneaky". Tenants today know the rules, how to skirt them, and absolutely will punish you if you do not follow them to the T.

In Colorado ESA does not need to be listed on the application and cannot be the sole determination to not rent under fair housing laws. Service animals are preceded by the ADA, ESAs are covered by Fair Housing. It doesn't matter if the landlord uses the term animal or pet etc. You might want to check about TX state law. We just finished a lawsuit w an ex landlord over the exact same thing and won via a summary judgement which included all of our legal fees and court costs. They had no issue with our autistic sons service dog (I think they knew better) but they went ballistic over our autistic sons ESA cat. They withheld our security deposit, filed an eviction notice, threatened to change the locks, and sent repeated nasty notices from their attorney detailing where they concluded we were breaking the lease (which we weren't). All of those things really did them a disservice in court. They are looking at multiple tens of thousands of dollars to remedy the situation and via damages and legal and court costs now. Not sure if they just wanted to pick a fight to pick a fight, but going after the ESA of a highly autistic 7 year old that has a trained service dog and all of the required documentation to back up each didn't work out well for them. The judge even ripped them for using animal vs pet as an overt attempt to dissuade eligible renters. I think they basically considered it steering. I'd need to ask our attorney but I know the judge didn't look kindly on how they presented it on the lease and was even less thrilled that they recognized their responsibility under the ADA but knowing made ever attempt possible to fail to comply w fair housing laws.

I think that the issue is that the law completely allows abuse of this term and situation. Technically, anyone can label any animal as a service animal. So why even bother disclosing you have any animals at all? Just show up with your 15 cats, 8 dogs, 5 birds, and a couple service sheep and you can't be questioned. Yep, sounds about right.

So while you have the law on your side to abuse this situation, and no need to even prove these claims as not being obvious abuse of it, it doesn't make it right. Over time, more and more "rights" are given to tenants and are equally stripped from landlords. Argue it all you want, but it's more and more absurd the direction things are going to the point that it is less and less worth dealing with being a landlord. If people want to do whatever they want, then they should stop renting and buy the houses themselves.

Lawyers and tenants love it. But anyone else watching it knows it's all a bunch of bull for 99% of the people pulling this crap.

JustPanda said:

---

In Colorado ESA does not need to be listed on the application and cannot be the sole determination to not rent under fair housing laws. Service animals are preceded by the ADA, ESAs are covered by Fair Housing. It doesn't matter if the landlord uses the term animal or pet etc. You might want to check about TX state law. We just finished a lawsuit w an ex landlord over the exact same thing and won via a summary judgement which included all of our legal fees and court costs. They had no issue with our autistic sons service dog (I think they knew better) but they went ballistic over our autistic sons ESA cat. They withheld our security deposit, filed an eviction notice, threatened to change the locks, and sent repeated nasty notices from their attorney detailing where they concluded we were breaking the lease (which we weren't). All of those things really did them a disservice in court. They are looking at multiple tens of thousands of dollars to remedy the situation and via damages and legal and court costs now. Not sure if they just wanted to pick a fight to pick a fight, but going after the ESA of a highly autistic 7 year old that has a trained service dog and all of the required documentation to back up each didn't work out well for them. The judge even ripped them for using animal vs pet as an overt attempt to dissuade eligible renters. I think they basically considered it steering. I'd need to ask our attorney but I know the judge didn't look kindly on how they presented it on the lease and was even less thrilled that they recognized their responsibility under the ADA but knowing made ever attempt possible to fail to comply w fair housing laws.

---

Just because you're in the 1% who actually have a legitimate service animal doesn't mean it's not a problem and isn't being abused left and right. You should be up in arms about all the people who abuse it, because that's exactly why that landlord reacted the way he did (and why it is harder and harder for those with legitimate needs as a direct result), even though he was clearly in the wrong and is on the extreme level of being unreasonable and is an obvious *******, and sounds like he deserved the outcome. Landlords know that the default is they are being lied to. So it's actually very reasonable to question it and try to not have to deal with it. It's a big red flag having a tenant who is being dishonest from the onset (I'm not saying that that is you), and that scenario leads to a significantly higher chance of headaches down the line, so I wouldn't want to even take that chance if I had a rental. The odds are not in their favor that it is a legitimate service animal, especially since it can't be questioned. Everyone knows more often than not they are being taken advantage of, because they have no rights to counter it. And it's even worse if tenants don't bother to disclose it at all, just because they might not have to. It adds skepticism and distrust to the relationship right off the bat, and for some landlords, they might look for any opportunity to get out of it.

So from my perspective, I'd do everything in my power to avoid being put into that situation. The owner of the property has much more to lose than the tenant in terms of their investment, especially since they can get around even having to put down an additional deposit for the owner of the property to try to recoup potential losses and try to counter that higher risk. IMO if you have a legitimate service animal that is well behaved and you know won't cause damage, then there should be no reason to NOT provide an additional deposit; if your animal won't cause damage, then you'll get that deposit back at the end of the day, so it's a fair compromise to help both sides feel more comfortable about the situation, from my perspective. But nope, they get to sneak in their animals with no need to put down added deposit to cover higher chance of damages from having animals. Who wouldn't take advantage of this situation? Seems like a no brainer. The naive idiots who are being honest about their "pets" are stupid to not lie, if only to not have to pay the deposit. So where does that leave the landlords? Added risk + inability to question + lack of added deposit to protect your investment + potentially higher risk tenant proven by being dishonest at the onset + tenant being bulletproof with no accountability under threat of lawsuit = not worth it.

Your example is the extreme, and an obvious POS landlord, but apparently all the rest are just supposed to accept it and not be able to question it. They know they have no leg to stand on to protect their investment against liars, so what options do they have other than accepting they have no rights in this scenario?

Again, I'm not defending the guy in your situation. I'm just saying that this is a big problem that is being allowed to exist with no ability to avoid it. Personally, I wouldn't want to get myself locked into that situation.

Why can't there be some proof required? Is there not a certificate that has some meat to it that can be required of owners? We own a business and everyone and their dog asks about military discount, which we'll do, but you better produce a military ID or you get nothing. There have been many who "don't have it in them". That's a lie. Why can't landlords REQUIRE valid proof? Not some bullcrap verbal bullcrap, real certified proof? If you really need an animal then it shouldn't be a problem to have such a document. I think it needs to be required. For the 7 year old autistic kid, the emotional support animal is bull***** That's a straight up service animal and that should require all the documents that come with it so as not to create an issue with a landlord. You don't see veterans running around with fluffy chihuahuas…they have full service animals with appropriate labeling. It's not a pet. It's a tool.

We can't tell what a woman is. How are we supposed to define an emotional support animal?!

I've always loved dogs, but I'm starting to get visceral reactions when I see dog people walk into Lowe's or Home Depot every weekend. Maybe 1 out of 100 are true service animals.