Had a young lady move in with decent income and credit last month. Within days of her moving in, I noticed another car on the lot for several days and which I called in for a tow (permit parking only). Turns out it her boyfriend. I confront her reminding of the lease provisions prohibiting additional residents. Yesterday, I get this e-mail:

>>>>>I am following up on the text message I had sent you. I would like to add an additional tenant to my lease, despite expressing disinterest a few weeks ago. To provide some background, this year has been a trialing year for me, personally. My uncle had been diagnosed with cancer and my close cousin had unexpectedly suffered from cardiac arrest and had passed away. Moving has been part of my plans before these events had occurred so despite being distraught with loss, I continued to move forward with the personal goals I set for myself. After moving was complete and I began settling into the apartment, I’ve found myself experiencing difficulty acclimating to the change. Although I have the companionship of my cat, I started feeling the strong sense of grief again. I have been seeking professional help throughout my hardships this year, but upon the move I had run out of sessions covered by insurance and ultimately had to abandon the help until next year.

With all of this being said, I enjoy living at apartment #5 and would like to continue doing so, but feel it would benefit me mentally if I am able to live with someone. I understand there is an approval process that must be completed first. Can you provide the next steps in adding an additional tenant to my lease?<<<

This sounds like an emotional support boyfriend (i.e. ESB rather than an ESA). She hasn't been there a month yet and was planning to slip this guy in before I confronted her. I sent him an application and we'll see how it goes. If he can't be approved, I may have to ditch her as he'll be around. I don't like the bait and switch business here as she knew at the outset she was going to move him in and should have had him on the app. I suspect there's a reason for that. I'll know shortly. She's m2m and so non renewal is on the table.

So, she is setting up a need for an emotional support accommodation. Of course, there is a process for that, requiring documentation and procedure, but you may have to accommodate her.

Suppose it's worth a shot to try and disqualify him, scratch that, I mean quality him.

Such a long text. More like a news report.

Wow, she told you everything except when her last bowel movement was. ; )

Good catch! I doubt he'll qualify, too.

Hope it works out well for you.

Moshe, I would be interested to see the what the law says about an emotional support human. I'm only aware of emotional support animals.

I'm agreeing with the others that you need to move her on out regardless of whether BF qualifies or not. 99.9% chance you're right that this was the plan all along, and I don't tolerate shenanigans. On the 1 in 1000 chance that wasn't her plan, there's still a load of drama getting ready to move in, so it's time to nip that in the bud. Sorry for the bad news.

>>>> Perhaps it's best to offer her the Happy Clause. As she is now running your business and I agree with you, if the cat isn't enough, the cat is not doing the cat's job. She needs a bigger cat!<<<<

Well, lets see, now.

I haven't really got time to look up actual law, but here's brief internet search of some secondary sources.

It seems like you don't really need to have ever heard of an

emotional support boyfriend, but it seems like it qualifies.

We have Fair Housing Act. Its federal, covers most housing, protects anyone with disability, including mental disability (I expect emotional disability would qualify). prohibits a whole lot of activities concerning making housing unavailable (including simple phrase, "otherwise make housing unavailable"), also "evict a tenant or tenants guest", "harass a tenant", and "Retaliate against a person who has filed a fair housing complaint or assisted in a fair housing investigation".

Its always interesting to see what the law says, but to an experienced landlord, this law has been around long enough to get a pretty good idea of what you can and cannot do.

Other laws that "might be interesting" could include Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act in addition to state or local laws.

When situations start changing at the start of a tenancy, it usually doesn’t end well. The person who was gonna watch the dog backs out, the tenant wants to paint that newly painted room a color they like, They remember their payday is eight days after the rent was due every month or The heating or air conditioning runs an extra four minutes which is what it is designed to do and that’s now a problem.

"An experienced landlord knows that hassle factors WILL AND DO t-rump laws on every level after a certain point."

?????

Really?

Just how experienced a landlord are you?

Even T-rump is having trouble with federal court.

What are you proposing as solution to GKARL's exercise.

Can he "nonrenewal" her or "ditch" her?

What is federal court like> Just like small claims?

Experienced enough to know that all your posts can simply be whittled down to “you must follow all laws, no matter what” and that’s simply not the case. I would say it would be better for GKarl to simply move this tenant onward since the beginning dynamic has changed in a way that will most likely negatively effect his business.

If he proceeds and screens, and denies, I’d say that he opens himself up for MORE housing discrimination than if he were just to say no and give notice.

If her mental state degrades to where she needs an emotional support human, no experienced landlord is going to keep themselves in that situation.

I would relook at my move in orientation session. If someone goes bad on me, I look at my systems that I have in place and see if there is something more that I can ad to make the process improved.

I understand, the ESB statement.

I prefer to get the boyfriend's info on paper, while they're still having hope that you'll rubber-stamp it, rather than have him get snuck in and have no clue who it is. On the plus side, perhaps he's a great guy and passes screening with flying colors and he leads to a happily-ever-after of stability and on-time payments. :P If he doesn't, then the answer is, "I'm sorry, but his application cannot be approved at this time. If it's important for you to be with him, it would be best for you to move into his place. Please give me your notice in writing."

The last time I went through that with someone, they preferred to stay put, and accepted the decline with good grace. As it turned out, they went ahead and moved the unauthorized roommate in anyways. (Short story: she was a former failed tenant of mine, and an automatic heck-no, but she was also a cousin, and their relationship smacked of an episode of Jerry Springer.) He ended up being a failed tenant himself. I only have myself to blame, because I ignored the red flags as a favor to someone else.

" I would say it would be better for GKarl to simply move this tenant onward ..."

How should he do that? Just serve a 30 day notice to terminate tenancy? What are you expecting might happen?

Whats the process? What can happen?

"He’s stuck now Moshe. He sent the application, gotta ride it out at this point."

I thought she has already moved in.

So, what does "riding it out" entail? Does GKARL need advice from this site? What do you advise?

If he's "stuck now", what do you think he is stuck with?

Is it a bigger "hassle factor" than if he had just granted her the accommodation? What do you think?

She’s already moved in. He’s stuck screening this guy since he sent him the application.

I don't understand what is the relevance of GKARL having sent an application. The tenant has asked for an accommodation based on disability.

Should GKARL grant the accommodation? How should he reply to her request?

There is a science to analyzing problems and explicating issues. This science is useful for landlords and other educated persons. I don't think that you have it.

At the time of his initial post, I don't think that GKARL understood the issues involved in the tenant's request, any more that you do, even now. Its a serious issue, worthy of serious discussion. My advice would be for GKARL to do his due diligence in processing the request, and to grant the request if he can't find a GOOD reason for denying it, much as he isn't happy about it.

We need SERIOUS discussion of issues like this, but unfortunately, you don't seem to have any talent for that.

Does it matter how he got himself into this matter?

Now that he is in it, what should he do?

I don't think that sending him the application obligated him to approve the request for accommodation in any additional way. That request is made by the tenant, who is entitled to a response. How should he answer?

Do you have an "artful" way for him to answer? I suspect that you have neither any experience in the subject (as shown by your responses) nor the ability to address a serious problem in a logical and serious way. You're on the same level as DJT, who also isn't able to give serious answers to serious problems.

You've told GKARL to "get rid of her". Was that really good advice? Is that advice liable to land him in trouble? Little trouble or big trouble? How big? What's the process? You really haven't thought your posting through, at all, only responding to a sense of being pushed, laws or no laws. But thats why laws need and have penalties.

What’s the serious problem here? The fact that he’s gonna step with a deadbeat whack job or that you expect landlords to cater to the ESA crowd?

How he gets himself out of this at this point is by denying him somehow on his application. And if that doesn’t work, he may have to sign a new lease at an expense of increase and then move them out a few months just because.

Hopefully next time he doesn’t get himself into this situation.

The serious problem here is that GKARL has a tenant who is requesting an accommodation to add her boyfriend to the lease based on disability. She has made the request, he needs to answer her request letter.

All the responses on this site say, not to do it, without even knowing anything about the boyfriend. If she has a disability, then landlord may be in violation of federal law if he fails to grant the accommodation without good reason.

GKARL has to respond to the request. So, what to say? Unfortunately, our site is no help. Perhaps no one has experience.

Simply turning down the boyfriend is probably not a good idea. Accepting his application and giving it all due consideration is probably a better idea. Then what?

If he looks good, then landlord may not have any good reason to refuse the accommodation.

If he has bad credit history or eviction for nonpayment, well he accepted HER ability to pay the rent without his contribution, so thats not a good reason.

If he has a minor or intermediate criminal record, well, if he has paid his debt to society then he is entitled to move in with her. After all, an accommodation means stuff like a waiver of policy.

And finally, if she is disabled and he marries her, then GKARL won't have any excuse not to grant the accommodation. And in today's world of alternative relationships, it not really a good excuse anyway.

But the inability of our site to develop and understand the issue and to offer meaningful advise is undermined by the lack of ability to even understand the details and its framework. The fact that there is a legal framework involved wasn't even considered.

"Moshe, you’re assuming that she can force the landlord to change the contract."

YES, and thats because she has a lot of leverage.

She cant force the landlord to sign anything, but she can make a complaint that would put him in violation of law if he loses, including "out-of-pocket costs incurred while obtaining alternative housing and any additional costs associated with that housing. Non-economic damages for humiliation, mental anguish or other psychological injuries may also be levied. In cases tried before a HUD Administrative Law Judge, civil penalties of up to $16,000 for a first violation, increasing to $65,000 for third violations, may be imposed. In cases brought by the Justice Department, the civil penalties can be up to $150,000". Plus, a judge can order the landlord to grant the accommodation.

She doesnt HAVE TO FORCE the landlord to physically change any contract but if he doesn't grant an accommodation when he should have, there can be serious penalties (including multiple counts), plus he will now be on a blacklist of previous disability violators.

Jasper,

YES, she has procedure to follow, including documntation of disability, but it is not a high standard. She has other procedure to follow, but if she make a complaint it will be investigated FOR HER, including filing a lawsuit (on her behalf) if the investigator finds that the complaint is justified.

Sob story and MIUFP "Moved in under false pretenses."

Another vote for Happy Clause

I had one of these over the winter, "Ms. Excuses" who had a sob story for everything and wanted to make her own rules. Got rid of her (holdover 11 days into June)

Well, MC, you certainly don't think much of the boyfriend before we know anything about him.

Seems to me that, based on the only things we know about this couple is her letter. The letter is very well written, polite and very professional, the writer is well-educated and seems to have a very good understanding of the issues of ADA and her own case. Is she a university graduate, or at least a student? While we cannot be sure that she wrote the letter herself, or with advice, she now seems to have all the issues of her case under control.

Is GKARL in similar control of his case? We don't know.

But it is possible that she (and maybe also her boyfriend) are smart, well-educated, high-class and dependable applicants, and both might make very good tenants.

Moshe you could view this as MC not thinking to highly of someone they don't know. Then again the GF does know him and appears to have not mentioned her intentions as clearly as GKarl can appreciate.

Fair housing says everyone living in the place has to be screened and that application of standards is done completely in a standard manner on each specific unit. I know my residents hear this from my orientation video. If someone sees that video and tries to work around that standard - they simply are asked to leave as a unit. He didn't get screened before moving in and she broke the lease by moving them in.

Based on 33 years of experience - an unscreened room mate situation rarely improves the quality of life of anyone involved. They are unscreened for a reason, and that reason typically isn't because they are afraid of the rave reviews that they will be getting.

1. Fair housing says everyone living in the place HAS TO BE screened ?????

2. "If someone sees that video and tries to work around that standard - they simply are asked to leave as a unit." Thats YOUR POLICY. You have a right to have that policy. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

3. "she broke the lease by moving them in." Yes, she did. But she has a right to ask for an accommodation which would override the lease (and she did).

4. You offer some observations from your experience about unscreened roommates. That may be true from your experience and not-so-true from other peoples' experience. In any case, you still are able to screen him.

5. I have no idea what sort of applicants you attract and accept. My own experience is based on educated tenants, with good jobs and records of integrity and my own criteria for acceptance My applicants may be different from yours and I treat them differently. I am very pleased with my results.

"Yes moshe , you have to apply your screening criteria to every applicant equally. You cannot selectively pick and choose"

A requirement that everyone has to be screened EQUALLY is not the same as a requirement that everyone has to be screened.

The tenant has a legal right to ask for an accommodation based on disability, and she can ask for it after she has moved in. An "accommodation" means "a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Various federal laws require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications for individuals with disabilities. The tenant is not limited to ask for the accommodation BEFORE moving in.

The car-rental analogy is not relevant.

If you deal in slum properties and corresponding low-life tenants, then you may find some policies to be useful. I deal in mainstream upper-echelon tenants and what works excellent for me is to let my tenants LIVE in their units. My job is to coordinate whatever steps are needed that my tenants can live and enjoy the property. I wouldn't have any problem with granting this accommodation, unless there is something wrong with the boyfriend that REALLY affects his presence in the property.

Our heroine seems to be intelligent, educated, polite and professional. I for one, am always on the lookout for tenants like that, and I would be surprised if she had a boyfriend who wasn't similar.

I'll just add that if he has bad financial history, you may not be able to turn her down based on that, but I think you'd be within your rights to turn HIM down because IMO a person with bad financial habits can cause the HOUSEHOLD financial situation to become bad. In other words, he can start spending her money and get her into financial problems.

GKarl, she just smacked you in the face with ALL her red flags. Proceed accordingly. “I would like to add a tenant to my lease despite expressing disinterest originally.”

"I'll just add that if he has bad financial history, you may not be able to turn her down based on that, but I think you'd be within your rights to turn HIM down because IMO a person with bad financial habits can cause the HOUSEHOLD financial situation to become bad. In other words, he can start spending her money and get her into financial problems."

1. She is already turned up.

2. She qualified without any financial contribution from Him. So, what is the meaning of "bad financial habits" on his account, if indeed he has any. I don't think that you would be successful to use HIS finances in any way as an excuse to deny the accommodation. YOUR concern about his effect on her behavior is, IMO none of your bloody business, and I would expect the court to see it that way, too. Your insistence on not wanting to give her the accommodation without a good reason is an overreach and your refusal to grant the accommodation would be illegal.

I'll post a separate string once I get his application in. This is a text I got today from her in response to the application I sent. This is a preview of what is most certainly a deadbeat:

>>>>> do you accept a guarantor for the application? I had a brief conversation with the applicant and he is concerned about the credit check as he do not have sufficient credit and poor credit history<<<<<<<

I've yet to get his application. Most folks with problematic backgrounds want no part of screening. I strongly suspect that there are evictions in the wrecked credit history. I won't accept someone now that I wouldn't have accepted at the outset. If that proves out, she's facing non-renewal. Unfortunately, by the time she's out, it's October and that's when things are slowing up. But rentals are tight here, so that might not be as much of an issue.

NE, she's m2m so I can give as little as 15 days notice of non renewal. I obviously don't have to provide a reason.

"I won't accept someone now that I wouldn't have accepted at the outset."

Is it completely your choice? HUD says "Federal nondiscrimination laws require housing providers to grant requests for reasonable accommodations and modifications in housing, programs, and activities." If you refuse, she can file a complaint and HUD will take it from there, to investigate your refusal, determine if you are out-of-compliance, and prosecute if they fell you are in violation.

Good Luck.

She is not ending any lease and then beginning another. She is asking for an accommodation to her present lease. Trying to characterize the situation that way is childish and not at all accurate, and will easily be discounted by educated lawyers and other adults.

I don't think that you will have any luck at all to deny the accommodation based on the boyfriend's financial situation, since the girlfriend qualifies on her own, so the pair will qualify together.

You might want to consult with an attorney who knows about discrimination and mental health. He ought to know about standards and regulations on a better basis then the above hogwash.

I don't think so.

She wants to add a tenant; to what lease? What would make the addition to the old lease as opposed to starting a new lease with two tenants.

And what does HUD say about her already having a lease and wanting an accommodation (to that lease?). Would HUD really care if its a old lease or a new lease? Either one prevents her from having the housing that she says she needs, and she would be entitled to ask for an accommodation to either circumstances.

Its pretty obvious that you are going to great lengths to try to characterize the situation so that you would get a fresh do-over so as to deny her the housing that she says she needs. But your reasoning is too cheap and too easy to counter to have any value at all.

If this goes that far, the only grounds which even deserve any recognition in court would be that either she doesn't really need the accommodation, or that the accommodation would really be unreasonable to the landlord, based on HUD standards. All the rest of the above cock-and-bull stories are easily seen for just what they are. Except for those two reasons, the law says that landlord cannot refuse the accommodation.

You’re drifting into the HUD realm again Moshe, stop. It doesn’t matter unless the landlord brings that unto himself. I don’t know how they do it in the upper echelon bubble of Com mie-fornia, nor do I care. Personally, I do the opposite of the left coast on principle because it’s better for America. But that’s for another thread)

In the art of landlording, what matters in a situation like this is that a landlord keeps tenants and applicants operating in his sandbox.

This tenant put GKarl in HER sandbox with this text.

GKarl is under no obligation to even RESPOND to some random text, let alone respond quickly. If you had actual rental units, instead of just being a liberal federal judge, you would know that one of the best things in a situation like this would be to buy yourself some time.

He could have responded in a day or two and simply said hey Miss drama, sorry for the delay in response, I’ve got busy and then I forgot. I had to keep things on it administrative level, we just want to let you know that we don’t really need any details of your personal situation. To help us understand, what you’re simply looking to do is change the lease and add a new tenant?

And when she says YES, she’s back in your sandbox.

Tactics Moshe. If you had real rental units, you would know there’s other ways to get things done. Real landlords don’t run to the lawyer every time some deadbeat throws them a curveball.

"GKarl is under no obligation to even RESPOND to some random text ..."

Yes he is.

She asked for an accommodation. If he doesn't reply, then its as if he said NO. Then, if she files a complaint, HUD (or its contractor) will investigate the complaint and take appropriate action based on the results of the investigation.

What kind of tactics are applicable here? GKARL can neglect to reply, hoping she won't follow up and make the complaint. If she does, HUD has timelines, they will probably do a little forgiving if he grants the accommodation. Do you think that HUD authorities are fools and don't know what landlords do to escape responsibility? They will be forgiving, up to a point, then they do what they are paid to do, investigate, prepare report for the attorney and file if appropriate. The only escape is for the tenant to fail to make the complaint, but once she does, a whole system starts up and won't stop.

HUD has funds to pursue unresponsive landlords, they have to answer to higher-ups including the Congress about their activities and their success record. Thats their job.

Plus, she didn’t ask for any type of accommodation based on medical necessity, she clearly asked for a new tenant to be added to the lease. 2 totally different and unrelated situations. For as fact based as you pretend to be, your missing huge points she made in her text (unofficial notice) to GKarl’s. In her note, she also gave him his opportunities to work things to his advantage. Not to mention todays follow up about the guy needing help BEFORE even filling out the app.

"Plus, she didn’t ask for any type of accommodation based on medical necessity, she clearly asked for a new tenant to be added to the lease."

Thats what an accommodation is. Various federal laws require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications for individuals with disabilities and "Federal nondiscrimination laws REQUIRE housing providers to grant requests for reasonable accommodations and modifications in housing, programs, and activities." She made the request. He failed to grant it. She can complain, they will investigate, evaluate and maybe file on her behalf. GKARL will need a good reason to escape penalty.

She asked for an accommodation based on disability. The modification is to allow a live-in companion despite landlord policy, for the sake of her emotional well-being. Thats what an accommodation is. Thats what she asked for. She didn't ask for merely another tenant to move in. If you can't see that, well, HUD and a judge will be able to see it quite clearly. Its an emotional support boyfriend, of course, but if its what the doctor ordered, then GKARL must have a very good reason to deny it.

I think the whole site (except for you) can see how GKARL and the whole MrLandlord community failed to understand how FHA and ADA can work to cover the case of an ESB. There is a good lesson to be learned here. I don't push GKARL to go in a direction he doesn't want to go in, but I steered him into understanding that there are factors here that he never even dreamed of, but which can hurt him. Its a more complicated circumstance than he ever thought of, and it is important to understand it. It may not be something he wants, but he better not be ignorant of it and its consequences, as you are.

I disagree Jeffrey.

She wrote a sob story and then asked to add a tenant and he gave her an application. She showed numerous red flags that have been talked about on this forum for YEARS.

That’s what I see and most of the board most likely sees. If it’s TRULY medically necessary, then no lease change would be necessary or screening of this guy. Same with an ESA or service dog or nurses aid, etc. You don’t change the lease for those. You collect the paperwork and that’s it.

Moshe is reaching on this particular thread. If what he’s saying is true, then she could basically hand GKarl a Dr’s note and move this guy in.

Fair housing points or not, I don’t think so. That doesn’t go against everything the long time players on this site discuss at all, does it?

Is that where we’re heading, now? If it’s medically necessary, then what happens when GKarl legitimately denies this particular persons application?

GKarl messages the lady back and say, we understand your concern and wish to help you meet your needs. However, Mr. Boyfriend doesn’t meet our standard minimum screening requirements for tenancy, so we won’t be able to let him sign a new lease.

Please have your Dr contact us with a new live-in emotional support boyfriend that we can screen?

Wow is this all confusing to a simple person like me.

So what is being said about Fair Housing is that she could get a doc to sign off on needing a boyfriend to live with her as emotional support? If that is true then the world of rentals is going to be very interesting for a while.

I had a tenant that was on the line but I accepted her. She lived in the apartment with her two minor children. Then one day a guy shows up. She doesn't say anything for a while until he starts causing issues with the neighbors.

Then she tells me he is her ex and just needs a place to stay a few days. Couple weeks go by and I finally find out who he is. Her ex, baby daddy with DV against her, multiple convictions for hard drug use and two outstanding warrants for his arrest.

I got rid of her by non-renewing her MTM lease.

So if I am understanding what is being suggested if she had her doc write a letter stating that she needed this guy to live with her for emotional support I would have had no recourse?

Zero, I think that’s what they would like you to believe. So if that’s the case, good thing GKarl has her on MTM.

GKarl - how did this turn out? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

If she is on MTM, it should be easy just not to renew her lease. She can then take her ESB with her to her new place.

Y'all are missing a couple of key points.

#1 Any ADA accommodation requires documentation of necessity by a medical professional (doctor, nurse, therapist, etc.). She doesn't state she has a doctor/therapist note that a roommate is necessary, but she might. To me she didn't yet request an ADA accommodation.

Time prevents me from answering most of these latest comments right now, except for poor Annie:

You say, "If she is on MTM, it should be easy just not to renew her lease."

Why do you say that?

Can you think of any observation that might shed any light on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of your statement?

If not, here's a hint: look over this thread; actually read it; maybe think about it (at least a little).

Poor Socrates, he must be very lonely, here.

Well, if the emotional support boyfriend identifies as a dog and you go to charge pet rent and then they identify as an ESA, then you will need that letter of medical necessity from a doctor. That’s when you hire a lawyer and you go after the doctor. Because they have to operate within a certain protocol and I’m sure you could find that they’re NOT! Especially in regards to an emotional support human. Then you go after their license. Then you void that stupid ESH letter. What a friggin joke.

Lori said: "I had a tenant say "He doesn't live here he is visiting". "You cant tell me who I can have over as company."

I wouldn't want to be the judge in this case........if someone who wasn't forthright initially tries to change the terms of the lease, they can expect to get terminated.

Couples by definition have an emotional bond.

That doesn't mean that they will both qualify.

I figured Moshe out already. He is one of those people who is not happy unless he causes chaos.

Reading the actual text, she has technically requested "the next steps to add an additional tenant to my lease", however, she definitely sets the stage / fact set for making a reasonable accommodation request.

My understanding of the ADA is that they have the responsibility of making a specific accommodation request (in writing), from which Moshes points about requiring a response and the consequences of HUD complaint are very valid.

The most pertinent question in that whole debate would be if her providing background information with out actually requesting any particular adjustment to the processing of an application for additional residencies actually legally crosses the line to be a valid reasonable accommodation request at this point.

Annie, I will post an update once I get his application. I've not gotten anything yet and reading between the lines, it may be that she wants him more than he wants her.

Dwillar, I have a similar provision in my lease which forced this issue.

Wow, what a thread!

Moshe is bringing up some real challenging issues any of us could face. And facing those threats to our emotional and financial stability is difficult. I wish I had the wisdom of Solomon.

But, a point that only a few have addressed is this: someone not originally on the lease is a very real business issue. Say a boyfriend or girlfriend moves in; obviously he or she needs a key. Later, the original tenant dies or the 2 break up. That second person (even if you didn't know he/she was there) is living at that address as his/her home. Now all the eviction laws apply. Or, say the original tenant dies. Same deal. If the original tenant's income was enough to pay the rent, now you have inherited an unknown person who has an unknown ability to pay as your tenant. And you don't even have the person's name to be able to start eviction proceedings.

My policy is applied equally: all tenants must meet my minimum standards. All tenants must apply. All tenants are vetted to see whether they do meet my standards.

So I would provide an application. I would have it investigated and corroborated like for any other tenant. If the new prospective tenant meets my standards, we can add the person to the lease, but ALL parties must sign the documentation indicating the changes to the term of the lease. The documentation requires that the additional tenant or tenant agrees to be responsible for rent and any damages, including damages that took place before the new tenant moved in.

This is still a scary situation. I have faced many financial losses when friends/lovers/boyfriends/abusers/spouses break up. It is an emotional strain and a financial strain on the landlord when it happens (almost always).

At the first sign of any problem that is evidenced by non-conformance with the lease, act as you would with any tenant, single, married, common-law, individual, business, . . . and give notice of lease violation and be prepared to follow with a court filing following the laws of your state.

Yes, there are some red flags there, but the added tenant might be fine and might qualify as a tenant and 2 tenants are often more capable of paying the rent.

Long time since I've been here, but I just can't resist giving some advice that works for me. When I sign a lease with new tenants, it clearly states that only the people signing as tenants on that date are accepted and any additions will be at my discretion and there WILL BE a rental increase (to be determined at the time) for each person added. Because of the size of the house and a sewer pump septic system, I limit tenants to 3 max at signing. I also pay the water (all on one line for 3 houses) and the trash bill.

I've had a plethora of 'additions' over the past 6 years 93 different groups) and it's worked out very well when I mention the 'new' person who seems to be moving in and give them the Application along with the amount of extra rent to be paid IF the newbie decides to stay. Any more than 2 weeks is my limit before I attack. It's all in my rental agreement as to who might be overstaying as in 'has a key, is there when tenants are not home, is seen moving personal belongings in, parks a vehicle overnight, etc.' I decide if they are 'long-term' guests or actually moving in.

So far with this last family, I had a new tenant with his brother and part-time child move in. In 2 months Grandma was seen staying, then moving in boxes and all sorts of stuff. I grabbed my rental agreement and an application. Chatted with the primary tenant and he admitted Mom was moving in to help care for the kiddo. Could she be an emotional support Grandma?? I reminded him of the agreement regarding adding a new person. Application was filled out and returned, extra $300. a month was negotiated. (I had asked for 4, but came down). That made my rent so much more, (it more than covered the extra water and sewer use) and all of us were happy.

All NICE people for once. Mom moved out after 2 years so I reduced rent back down to before Mom arrived (she was only going to stay 6 months in the beginning so I offered that option and it seemed fair) BUT then I added the $300. back for the NEW Girlfriend who appeared and I am still getting substantial rent.

I am on my way out again after lunch, but JR's contribution could use a few extra words from HUD, regarding whether or not she made the request for accommodation or merely requested to add a tenant:

"Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.

The Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. The requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability."

Is there any room here to interpret the request as being merely a request for "steps" to add a roommate? I don't think so.

GKARL's tenant has written a request (actually her second communication) which is very intelligent and professional .

She has covered all the bases:

She calls attention to the fact that she has already approached the landlord a first time.

She makes her request, including how it relates to her disability.

She notes her experience with "professional help", including the limitations of her insurance.

She notes her understanding about an "approval process" (probably demanded by Landlord) and formally requests "the steps".

We don't know if she wrote the letter herself, or if she had help (maybe even an attorney), but she seems to have covered all of the bases. She may be fraudulent or not, but so far, she has done everything right.

NE'a advice is to disregard the law and for the landlord to do whats good for himself alone. The tenant may or may not follow through with making a complaint, but the form is available on the internet. I understand that the penalties are not cheap and escalating, plus getting on the HUD blacklist will ensure that constant testing will follow.

So what advice should Mr. Landlord give to a newbie landlord? Grant the accommodation, deny the accommodation and take your chances about a complaint and court, practise denial of Fair Housing Act and ADA, and just do what a landlord's gotta do, Do opposite to whatever Moshe would do (whatever that is)? What's the right answer? Remember, she seems pretty intelligent or else has a pretty intelligent lawyer, either way seems pretty ominous?

An alternative suggestion might be for GKARL to consult with a lawyer, competent in FHA & ADA.

Well Moshe, I ignore your advice because or your history. You don’t really have a good track record for having most workable advice for the everyday landlord. It’s usually so far off in left field all the time that it never works at the ground level. Just because you’re articulate, doesn’t mean you’ve got the needed street smarts.

So GKarl either has a whack job or a liar on his hands. Either way their moving. Now or later.

A good landlord can see the red flags and the incoming drama for the duration of her tenancy. A good landlord would have her picking her by the next rent cycle. A great landlord would have her packing her bags with a smile on her face and thinking it’s her ideas.

Huge problems here. Either a lying tenant or a scamming tenant or a tenant who knows how to work the laws against you.

There’s a poster here who often says, I never take anyone with a story. This girl sure has one. Jeffrey has said before, never rent to anyone who can put negotiate you. This girl is currently out negotiating GKarl. Red flags galore.

So she either moves now with a denied app or illegal occupant or she moves in a few months on principle so it doesn’t look like retaliation.

NE...if a tester were testing if a Landlord would allow another person to move in based on ADA needs...they would have to move in first to test it.

Also, she could have gone to a tenant advocacy group with this issue and they could have told her how to word a request. They will also be very versed in knowing the next steps if the landlord does not follow the laws in this situation. I would be concerned about her having created a paper trail & also documenting that this is a follow up to the request.

Based on the definition of entrapment ..I don't see how it applies:

"Entrapment is an affirmative legal defense.

Based on the definition of entrapment ..I don't see how it applies:

"Entrapment is an affirmative legal defense.

I would think that moving in with the intentions of tripping him up in a fair housing complaint would be entrapment in some form.Beyond that, what happens if he passes their test? Oh hey, we’re just kidding, you passed the test, we’re moving out now! See ya. I doubt she’s a tester.

I would think that would be grounds for a lawsuit in GKarls favor for a disruption in his business if it was done by a testing entity.

Tester test...that is what they do. Fair housing and ADA testers have been around forever.

"Beyond that, what happens if he passes their test? Oh hey, we’re just kidding, you passed the test, we’re moving out now! See ya"... yep now we have test #2, moveout reasons!

I believe i have been tested at least once. Yea, if you pass nothing happens. I am back on my local Landlord Tenant Commission and during Fair Housing month they talk about the testing activities going on. I have no reason to believe the testers are only active during Fair Housing month.

I’m talking about them moving into your unit and then testing. If you pass they move out and create another vacancy and additional workload for you? Yeah right! There would be lawsuits everywhere and we being hearing a lot more about it over the years.

The impact of testing on the Landlord is not a reason for not testing. A landlord "wasting" time to meet a "tester" at a unit is not considered a valid reason for them not to test. If the guy doesn't pass the standard application, I would think end of story. Of course i would call Fair Housing/ADA and get clarification on the law for these circumstances.

When considering the risk/reward for the different scenarios seem pretty clear.

Offer an application, call Fair Housing/ADD for clarification :

- he passes , he is qualified let him move in--no ADA/Fair housing violation

- he fails application, does not move in --no ADA/Fair housing violation

-ignore request, do nothing potential ADA/Fair housing violation

Well, let’s unpack this. I’m not talking about not meeting a tester at a unit. I’m talking about a tester moving into your unit and then testing you and then moving out after you pass the test. For example, GKarl. He has a tenant now during prime renting season who you are saying may be a tester. If he passes this little test, they’re not going to be staying in the unit. They’re going to be moving onto another test. So now G Karl is left with a vacancy heading into winter as a result of their attempt to entrap him with their testing. I don’t think that’s the case. I think if landlords started getting wind that this was happening, there would be major lawsuits for interfering with business. Causin hmm major loss of income, etc.

Personally, I would not call fair housing in order to be compliant. If it came to this point, I would call a lawyer who fights them to give me ways to get around it. Just the things I disagree with, like emotional support humans. Race, religion, that stuff I agree with, that’s understandable. I don’t agree with the new wave nonsense, so it’s worth resisting for me.

I think as far as him passing/not passing the application, I think that’s where it’s going to get a little sticky. Because Moshe is saying you have to make a reasonable accommodation for someone to move in with her and I think most would really like to say regardless of the application. But he hasn’t yet. So, what happens whenthis guy fails the application. That’s a big question for all the advocates claimining fair housing in this thread.

Does she just keep giving you applications and you collect fees for boyfriend after boyfriend after boyfriend until someone passes?

Ignore request? There’s still no request for an accommodation. There’s a request for a roommate that she was undecided about originally. That’s a fact, by what she wrote.

Terminate the lease? He has every RIGHT to terminate that MTM lease.

Well, let’s unpack this. I’m not talking about not meeting a tester at a unit. I’m talking about a tester moving into your unit and then testing you and then moving out after you pass the test. For example, GKarl. He has a tenant now during prime renting season who you are saying may be a tester. If he passes this little test, they’re not going to be staying in the unit. They’re going to be moving onto another test. So now G Karl is left with a vacancy heading into winter as a result of their attempt to entrap him with their testing. I don’t think that’s the case. I think if landlords started getting wind that this was happening, there would be major lawsuits for interfering with business. Causin hmm major loss of income, etc.

..RESPONSE the impact of Fair Housing/ADA testing to the Landlord is not a consideration for the organization doing the testing...end of story! ONLY the landlord cares about the inconvenience.

Personally, I would not call fair housing in order to be compliant. If it came to this point, I would call a lawyer who fights them to give me ways to get around it. Just the things I disagree with, like emotional support humans. Race, religion, that stuff I agree with, that’s understandable. I don’t agree with the new wave nonsense, so it’s worth resisting for me.

RESPONSE...I would prefer a free call with Fair Housing/ADA over a lawyer call, especially since the lawyer has a financial interest.

I think as far as him passing/not passing the application, I think that’s where it’s going to get a little sticky. Because Moshe is saying you have to make a reasonable accommodation for someone to move in with her and I think most would really like to say regardless of the application. But he hasn’t yet. So, what happens whenthis guy fails the application. That’s a big question for all the advocates claimining fair housing in this thread. RESPONSE..not a reason to not collect an application fee. He either passes or he doesn't. If he fails, you are protected. If he passes, why not let him move in?

Does she just keep giving you applications and you collect fees for boyfriend after boyfriend after boyfriend until someone passes?..

RESPONSE ..YES, what is wrong with collecting multiple application fees, especially for folks who don't move in.

Ignore request? There’s still no request for an accommodation. There’s a request for a roommate that she was undecided about originally. That’s a fact, by what she wrote.

RESPONSE ...

RESPONSE according to what constitutes a request she has made a request!.."Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.

Terminate the lease? He has every RIGHT to terminate that MTM lease.

FYI, the worst advice is free advice. You are welcome to call fair housing who advocates for the tenant and get all the pro tenant for advice you want. I’d rather spend money on a good lawyer who is well-versed in fighting them. So I can run my business my way. And keep scammers out of my units. You’re assuming that they’re not going to make a mistake somewhere in her approach on trying to get him into the unit.

If you just keep collecting fees and denying applicants, that might land you in some hot water too if you’re concerned about fair housing. But I would say it might be a really good time to ramp up your requirements in your screening. Take it out and get it notarized to the timestamp on it.

And in regards to the retaliatory move out, you’re obviously not going to tell them I don’t agree with what you’re doing, here’s your move out notice!. The art of landlording has you waiting six or eight weeks to do that. And then you give them a 60 day notice or let them know that in spring they have to move.. When everything‘s blown over. It’s all about buying time and playing the game. It’s an art, and so many landlords don’t have the art.

GKarl is getting stuck with either a liar, scammer or self admitted mental case. Either way, I say send them packing to California.

FYI, A big part of having common sense is knowing when to follow them, when use them to your advantage, when to ignore them and when to contact a lawyer to maximize them to your benefit. Aldo’s rule, the landlord is in charge, the tenant is not in charge.

wow, her rambling letter gave me a headache and caused me to dislike her.

this is why i make my tenants sit and listen to all the important parts of my rent agreements.

lots of boilerplate gets skated over but due dates, late fees, auth'd tenants, guest policies and pets get eye ball to eyeball and a head shake that they clearly understand the laws of the land. when they ask why only month to month i tell

NE, I really don’t mean to continue our mutual denigration session, but you are really writing such drivel that I’m going to call attention to.

You know, its not a crime to have not gone to college. Lots of people have done without a college education and done just fine in the world. But it helps, intellectually, to have formed habits of intellectual honesty, thought-organizational skills, experience in basic research skills, rudimentary logic, and above all, the ability to recognize when your OWN argument is absurd.

Lets review some of your positions:

You continue to insist “Ignore request? There’s still no request for an accommodation. There’s a request for a roommate that she was undecided about originally. That’s a fact, by what she wrote.” If you had a college education, you should have known to look at the requirement of what constitutes a request of accommodation, to evaluate your claim of non-request. Has she made a request or not? You won’t answer that question, I’m sure, but instead try to divert the attention by claims of socialists, tenant-lovers, personal attacks, left-wing, California, anything to avoid answering the basic question, because you are unable to admit that your argument is so obviously bogus. Its not a good way to successfully explicate any issue.

“Terminate the lease? He has every RIGHT to terminate that MTM lease.” (I guess you mean the landlord)

After all the discussion in this thread, you continue to insist that is true. Well, there are retaliatory eviction procedures, designed to attack exactly that problem, also FHA and ADA each have their own prohibitions and penalties for that. Again, a college education would have (should have) taught you to go and check what rights you have and you don’t have before shooting off your mouth. Are you so sure that you have that right, “have every right”? Again, I don’t suppose you will or can answer that in substance, rather to divert attention with insults. Do your homework.

“You are welcome to call fair housing who advocates for the tenant …” . Do you have any experience with Fair Housing? If not, how did you form your claim? Fair Housing is a US government agency, they are bound by law to apply the law fairly and with integrity, if not they are themselves in violation. They don’t ADVOCATE at all. They apply the law as it is written, and they are subject to judges that interpret that law. You have a phobia that the world is against you and its not your fault, but the truth is that its YOUR phobia in your own mind. You live in a society, but you are simply unable to realize that society has rules and you are required to follow them, with penalties to enforce your compliance. You don’t like to be bound by rules, so your energy all goes into avoiding them. A college education would (should) help you to understand rules and their value to society.

“And in regards to the retaliatory move out, you’re obviously not going to tell them I don’t agree with what you’re doing, here’s your move out notice!. The art of landlording has you waiting six or eight weeks to do that. And then you give them a 60 day notice or let them know that in spring they have to move.. When everything‘s blown over. It’s all about buying time and playing the game. It’s an art, and so many landlords don’t have the art.” That’s just crude reasoning, not an art. Do you really think that you will get away with that. A good college education would have (should have) taught you to at least read up on how arguments are made to counteract schemes like yours, and overriding your 60 days notice. You are so deep in your own world that you are sure that Fair Housing consists of fools and that they have no power to deal with schemes like yours. Your approach is crude, dishonest, greedy and short-sighted. If she wants to stay, she can simply ask for an accommodation for you to withdraw your notice, and you’ll be in trouble if you refuse.

A good college education would teach you that there are better approaches to solving problems. You are terrified that you are going to lose control of what goes on, and you don’t know how to deal with it.

I can’t even read your nonsense Moshe. You are so hung up on this being a medical accommodation and it’s not. She asked for a roommate, plain and simple. She didn’t ask for a medical accommodation. I don’t know why your Ivy League college degree can’t see that. But I guess it’s kind of a long the lines of what my father used to say, “ some people are so smart that they’re stupid.”

She nowhere in her message to GKarl said that she needs someone to help her medically. I know you like to tell me how much you know about fair housing, but do you not get that this isn’t even in that arena yet?

Pass or fail this guy. If he fails, they both get off. That’s not retaliatory. That’s a change in lease. New circumstances.

It is never a landlord‘s duty to read between the lines of a tenants sob story to gather information in order to help the tenants cause. It is the landlords duty to read between the lines of their BS and help his own case against the tenant.

You are always screening your tenants. From the very first initial contact until they’re out the door at the end of the lease. Right now she’s back into failing her screening with her shenanigans.

The paranoid hypotheticals don’t matter. Not yet anyway.

I wondered about the "Happy Clause", too.

I searched the Mr. LL site for Happy Clause and found two entries.

On what basis would he argue that the accommodation was unreasonable?

You know, it needs to be actually unreasonable. What would the unreasonableness be?

He doesn't make enough money? But she qualifies without any contribution from him. So landlord's risk is no worse because he is added to lease.

He has credit problems? Same answer. Landlord's risk is no greater because he is there.

He has eviction history? For nonpayment of rent? For credit card debt? Again, what additional risk is landlord suffering?

Drug history? What would make the accommodation unreasonable for landlord to perform? In the face of ADA, the benefit to tenant might take precedence?

I'm not saying that there are not accommodations that might really be too unreasonable for landlord to be required to perform. But this one only requires landlord to take on an additional tenant and the burden on the landlord doesn't amount to much.

The weight of disability accommodation makes a pretty compelling argument against denying the accommodation for petty reasons.

Moshe this is where we disagree. If I understand your position, if she decides to claim him as an emotional support person then she can move in anyone and their qualifications are irrelevant?

Many years ago, I had a conversation with Fair Housing about groups of people, college students pulling their income together and wanting to rent a townhouse from me. Not wanting to create a party house. I called Fair Housing.

As I recall this was the outcome:

- Only required to pool income from two people

- Everyone had to meet other qualifications i.e. credit score, works stability, rental history criminal history

So, unless things have changed with Fair Housing or there is an exception under ADA he would have to qualify on his own, less the income.

You ask “So landlord's risk is no worse because he is added to lease.” There is an incremental risk to the landlord. If she moves out and he stays you’re potentially stuck with someone with a poor credit score, work, rental and credit history. This is why I will not rent to a couple where one is good and meets my qualifications and the other is unqualified. Invariably the good one moves out and the bad one stays. Clarification is needed on whether ADA would require you to take an unqualified person? I would be surprised. But of course, confirmation is needed.

“You can’t do that Moshe. If this guy is a bum and fails his application and you let him in anyways, that’s discriminatory to all the other people that you failed in the past for the same thing during your application process. Consistency is key.”

If it really is discrimination, is it unlawful discrimination? Against some particular class? What particular class? I sometimes pass over people that I don’t like personally. Is That discrimination? Unlawful discrimination?

“Maybe not in CA, but in MI you have the right as a landlord to require that all applicants have a certain credit score and income, and if one doesn't a denial is totally fine. Moshe, what about if one has an eviction? In your opinion, do you still have to approve him since the other applicant does not have one? If this is the case, Toda La El I moved from CA... Or you are setting yourself up for big trouble..."

Who said anything about approving him? And, ze lo ha-daat sheli, rak et ha-daat shel ha-mishpat.

On to Laura: “If I understand your position, if she decides to claim him as an emotional support person then she can move in anyone and their qualifications are irrelevant?”

Are you under the impression that you DO understand my position? I never said what you said, did I?

My father often said to me something like “Ask a stupid question, and you deserve a sharp, to-the-point sarcastic response meant to make you embarrassed that you asked it. Its meant to teach you not to say stupid things.”

Have I even talked anything about qualifications and relevance? Isn’t the issue “accommodation”? What do you think is the difference between what you say I said, and what I actually said?

You mention a conversation that you say you had with Fair Housing.

Exactly, what question did you ask them? And, what office was that, exactly? (it might be very relevant).

Is it possible that you got an answer to the question that you actually asked, and thus the answer that you got is irrelevant to the issue you really want to discuss, here?

“risk” was probably not a good choice of words for this situation. The issue is “reasonable-ness” and I believe that the accommodation of moving in an additional tenant (even an imperfect one) is a minor inconvenience to the landlord. Disagree? Stop and think about it. What would be the real issues to govern such a decision? Just exactly, what is “unreasonable” about moving in an imperfect additional person, and why should the landlord’s policy be sustained?

“Clarification is needed on whether ADA would require you to take an unqualified person?”

Does ADA do that? Again, Stop and Think about it. Forget your Read-and-Memorize education, and use your mind!

"that’s what I believe 'he' has been saying to do this whole time. That’s why I have taken such a position against it."

Is that really what I have been saying to do? I advise you, too to Stop and THINK! Forget your Read-and-Memorize education and use your mind. What is it that FHA and ADA are requiring you to do?

You continue to take (insist on) the position that you do because you don’t understand at all whats going on. You take the position that you do because you are terrified that anyone might make you do anything that isn’t what YOU want to do. You just don’t like obeying rules and you manufacture reasons why no one can tell you what to do.

Actually folks, there's a lot that can be learned from what Moshe has to say. Reread the various points outlined and the questions we have been challenged with. The most important thing is to seek to understand the points presented.

There is big benefit in understanding various perspectives, which was alluded to earlier. That is indeed one of the big benefits of this forum, which contributors all graciously take of their time to share from their background and experiences, and of which many of us greatly appreciate, because none of us has all the answers.

Since we our all in different states and may deal with rules and face judges who see things in different perspectives, I'd rather know in advance the different ways others may be thinking so I can tread and operate my business wisely when needed.

In my opinion, it would be a big mistake after reading all of the above, and not at least learn something from BOTH ends of the spectrum. I know over years, my success has been greatly increased by learning as much as I can from different viewpoints (from street smarts to book smarts) and not simply dismiss an idea or concept because it is different than what I'm used to doing.

Let me try to explain what this is all about, since no one else can figure it out.

You all live in one state or another, each embedded within a federal union with a separate government.

You all insist that you know all about what you can do and that you have rights that are granted by law and your personal policy. But you are unable to understand how these separate governments work, independently but together, and how they operate with regard to your PERSONAL POLICY.

NE says: “You can’t do that Moshe. If this guy is a bum and fails his application and you let him in anyways, that’s discriminatory to all the other people that you failed in the past for the same thing during your application process. Consistency is key.”

YES I CAN, NE. The idea of consistency doesn’t even apply, here. Your idea of a bum is YOUR PERSONAL POLICY, and that’s all you are being asked to vary is YOUR PERSONAL POLICY. Your idea of a “failed application” is YOUR PROCEDURE and not the law. You are being asked to waive YOUR PERSONAL POLICY in order to “accommodate” a tenant’s disability. You are so desperate to have it your own way that you twist any cock-and-bull reason into a right.

Or says: “Maybe not in CA, but in MI you have the right as a landlord to require that all applicants have a certain credit score and income, and if one doesn't a denial is totally fine. Moshe, what about if one has an eviction? In your opinion, do you still have to approve him since the other applicant does not have one? If this is the case, Toda La El I moved from CA... Or you are setting yourself up for big trouble..."

I will let you off easily, because you are a chaver (chavera). I don’t think that, even in MI, that you have the RIGHT TO REQUIRE that all applicants have a certain credit score and income, rather that the courts find that to be an acceptable reason to disapprove of an application. But that doesn’t matter, because FHA and ADA are FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Regulations and they take precedence over state law. And also, anyway, this has nothing to do with “approving” an applicant. FHA and ADA have nothing to do with “approval”. They require that you grant “a reasonable accommodation” for a disabled tenant. What is an “accommodation”? It is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service. So you are being asked to change, make an exception to, adjust your rule, policy, practice or service to a reasonable extent. You don’t have to “approve” him. If you don’t make the accommodation, then state laws don’t count, and there are penalties attached. I hope that will turn on the light bulb over your head (PUN: “Or” means “light” in Hebrew).

Laura says: “If I understand your position, if she decides to claim him as an emotional support person then she can move in anyone and their qualifications are irrelevant?”

Aside from your comment that she “decides to claim him …”, then YES, she can REQUEST from you that you accommodate her need. She can’t MOVE IN anyone without your consent, and their qualifications are still their qualifications, but if you DON’T grant a reasonable such request, then there are penalties. Your concern about “anyone” and “qualifications” might relate to the requirement of “reasonable”, but you have to separate actual concepts of “reasonable accommodation” from your personal idea of who you want in your property and deal with the actual consequences of making the accommodation. In this case, monetary qualifications are NOT a factor, neither is a history of eviction, neither are any other PERSONAL preferences of your own choosing, only factors which would make the accommodation truly unreasonable for you to perform. As an example, you say that “I will not rent to a couple where one is good and meets my qualifications and the other is unqualified.” That’s a purely personal choice. You don’t have to “rent to a couple”, just let him live there. You don’t need to depend on him for anything.

Insane!! You don’t just let him live there. There’s no established protocol for an emotional support human. Well, besides what you’re pretending that there is.

Where is the note from the doctor? Has your attorney reviewed the legitimacy of this letter of medical necessity? Has your attorney reviewed the doctors license at the state level? Is the doctor allowed to prescribe this type of thing within his license? What job does this person perform? What qualifications/license does this person have to meet the medical mental health needs of your existing tenant? If no qualifications and license is needed, where can I find that under the doctors authority to prescribe this? How long are they there for? 6 months, 1 year? Indefinitely? Are they in the house when the person is not home?

All of these would 100% need to be answered before this person steps 1 foot in my property as an emotional support human.

This is a NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

You are setting up a landlord for a world of hurt by telling them to be afraid of the situation due to potential fair housing and just basically let people move in because some tenant says they’re nuts and needs someone to live with them.

This particular situation would take MORE screening, not less. Lawyer verification and probably beyond anything any one of us have done here before! And that’s a freaking fact!

My idea of a bum is certainly not personal policy. Its a generic term for someone who does not meet my well-established screening criteria. Well understood jargon among actual landlords.

All of my reasons for denying within my screening process fall within the law. Credit, no violation of the law. Landlord history, no violation of the law. References, no violation of the law.

I’m not being asked to waive my personal policy in this situation, because she’s asking for a roommate, not a medically necessary person to take care of her. If any of us were ever to get into the realm of a necessary emotional support human, every one of us in here would be in uncharted waters. So you don’t have the answer anymore than I do.

While I agree that the entire emotional support human is folly I do have a question about medically necessary caregivers.

Have not had this scenario happen to me yet.

You rent to someone. All is fine with the tenant. Then an illness comes on. Something that renders the person incapable of taking care of themselves.

They bring in a care giver who will be living in the unit. The way I understand it you can not deny an extra person. But can you deny this particular person?

Continuing with the make believe scenario. Tenant has a true need. Has a nephew who was a care giver for a facility but got busted for something harsh. Stealing meds, inappropriate contact, whatever. They can't work for the facility because of this.

Can you screen them and deny based on background? Doesn't seem right that you could be forced to allow a person with a known bad background to live in your unit. Going even further say this caregiver started fires, multiple times. Proven guilty. Repeat offender out on bail for the last one he set in his last residence.

Rats! Sucked into an argument between a few people. I stopped reading a few arguments in.

Scrolled to the bottom.

GKarl,

She wants her BF there.

#1 Don't rush to turn this into an ESA situation. Lots of PRESUMING going on here.

#2 Give the guy the OPPORTUNITY to apply to stay good regarding Fair Housing Law.

My app shows 6 basic criteria BEFORE they fill out the form and pay the fee. I fully expect him to either not apply or be easily denied. NOW you know and have FACTS in hand AND written/signed by him. Don't deny without written proof.

You can also implement the guest policy in your lease. Mine is no more that 14 days in a calendar year. (borrowed from the IRS)

#3 As always, Make Lemonade. My lease is clear: additional persons added to the lease are $100 each per month.

#4 MY Health Code limits occupancy by square footage. 2 persons requires a 120sf bedroom.

BRAD

That’s too bad Brad, you missed a pretty in depth discussion. Glad to see you’re in agreement with me though.

Its unfortunate that the same arguments just get repeated over and over. No new contributions.

For example, I wrote that "My advice would be for GKARL to do his due diligence in processing the request, and to grant the request if he can't find a GOOD reason for denying it, much as he isn't happy about it."

What hasn't been pointed out (at least not explicitly) is the procedure is different. A landlord can do all of his decision-making about accepting or rejecting the live-in-to-be companion, including rejection for whatever reasons he wants, legal, subjective or personal, but then "she" can invoke a different law, of federal jurisdiction, which has different procedure, standards and penalties. In the federal court, there is no examination of tenant acceptance policies, only the issue of whether the requested accommodation was “reasonable” or not, (and did landlord refuse it). Any issues of the imperfections of the potential roommate can only be presented within the framework of “reasonable accommodation”. Penalties can include “"out-of-pocket costs incurred while obtaining alternative housing and any additional costs associated with that housing. Non-economic damages for humiliation, mental anguish or other psychological injuries may also be levied. In cases tried before a HUD Administrative Law Judge, civil penalties of up to $16,000 for a first violation, increasing to $65,000 for third violations, may be imposed. In cases brought by the Justice Department, the civil penalties can be up to $150,000".

And it is not just a question of having your attorney argue the case for unreasonableness, he needs to have what to argue. It also hasn’t been pointed out that while landlord can of course have an attorney, he will need to pay for that, while our heroine will have the case filed on her behalf, by the local HUD contractor, who usually won’t file a case unless he has all of his ducks in a row (if he wants to keep his contract).

Finally, don’t you have a way to “move-in” a boyfriend or other roommate, without him/her becoming a tenant? In CA, for example, you can specify in your lease who is the LESSEE (tenant) and also specify who is allowed to live there. If you need to serve an eviction summons, the papers from the court to be served on ANY person found on the premises include a form for each person claiming right to possession to fill out, specifying what is his/her right to possession. If the right to possession is only as a visitor, or based on the tenants’ right to possession, then he has to go.

GKarl - since the ESBF has not returned an application (and I seriously doubt that he will), I would say the writing is on the wall that he would not be an ideal tenant. It is time for you to non-renew that MTM lease with here as soon as you can.

Then they can go and be-devil another landord somewhere else.

The last couple of weekends, her car hasn't been on the lot. I'm speculating that she's been spending time at her boyfriend's place. She may terminate her M2M on her own given that I've put a stop to her ESB plans. We'll see. I may follow up to see what happened.