Recently rented a home and allowed 2 dogs. The IN HOME visit checked out. Plus it's a rougher home and still had a some odor from the previous hoarder with 6 cats. So win-win.

I stopped by today to check on storm damage repairs and her Mom answered the door with a tiny yapper. She said "I hope my daughter does not get n trouble because I brought MY dog."

I politely explained that yes, her daughter the resident would be fined for visiting animals.

Mom said "What if *I* pay the $35 every month so I can bring Taco the dog with me?" Hmmm....my greed gland began to tingle.

The house already smells, no carpet, has 2 dogs under control, and this dog would only visit occasionally...

They agreed and I will allow it.

Here's the kicker...her dog is ESA but willing to pay for it!

Gotta keep an open mind!

# 65

last count ya had # 64 animals with no damage.

What smells don't count ?

It shouldn't matter if Mom's dog is an ESA as she is not on the lease. Right?

I included no pet sitting in my lease as well.

Mom is not on the lease so she causes kid to lose the rental.

At least that is the way I see it here. Especially if they try the ESA route.

Writing the new yapper as the leasee's animal, not as the Mom's.

Mom is not on the lease.

Just to mention it, the 2004 statement regarding Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act mentions that it also applies to people ASSOCIATED with the tenant even if the tenant does not have a disability and therefore is not directly covered under the FHAA.

It specifically mentions parents, for example, with a disability who qualify. So, technically, it appears that the visiting Mom with an ESA would actually need to be accommodated for.

But, heck, we know no one really cares anyhow. So ignore the law like most are doing if you'd like.

John, I wonder how it would play into it if Brad were to get written documentation from the mother as to her stating that she would pay and the fact that Brad didn't ask first?

For the record,

No one has asked for "reasonable accommodation" nor supplied any documentation.

For the record,

No such request is required for a visiting ESA. Nor does any documentation need to be supplied unless requested by you.

I'm just telling people the law -- they are free to do with that information as they please. Most ignore it and that is fine.

However, to respond to what you wrote... ESAs are not considered "pets" by law. So a "no visiting pets policy" would not apply.

It would not "fall in the tenants lap" because the federal government has already clarified the law on this. Visiting ESAs are not pets and a reasonable accommodation must be made (i.e. allowing them to visit). No request before said visit must be made by them. And a LL can request documentation if they'd like, but it is not required to be presented before the visit.

Again, that's how it works. People can ignore the law if they'd like. Someone asked a question, so I answered it.

And, yes, I have rentals. I don't know why you have to get so attacking against someone when they are just stating facts or the law. Again, if you disagree with the law, so be it, but it doesn't change the law.