A reader on the ApartmentAssoc at YahooGroups list asks
What thoughts are there on a Request for a comfort animal with a month to month lease.
Can the lease be terminated under the month to month provision.
Terminating the tenancy due to a legitimate, i.e. they met the requirements of a comfort animal, not that you feel it is legitimate, comfort animal probably is worse than simply rejecting a request as you are now breaking additional rules and statutes. For example in Wisconsin’s Chapter 704 (Landlord Tenant Statutes)
704.45 Retaliatory conduct in residential tenancies prohibited.
(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), a landlord in a residential tenancy may not increase rent, decrease services, bring an action for possession of the premises, refuse to renew a lease or threaten any of the foregoing, if there is a preponderance of evidence that the action or inaction would not occur but for the landlord’s retaliation against the tenant for doing any of the following:
(a) Making a good faith complaint about a defect in the premises to an elected public official or a local housing code enforcement agency.
(b) Complaining to the landlord about a violation of s. 704.07 or a local housing code applicable to the premises.
(c) Exercising a legal right relating to residential tenancies.
(2) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a landlord may bring an action for possession of the premises if the tenant has not paid rent other than a rent increase prohibited by sub. (1).
(3) This section does not apply to complaints made about defects in the premises caused by the negligence or improper use of the tenant who is affected by the action or inaction.
The real answer is to ask the feds to step in and repair this rule before housing goes to the dogs, including Federally Subsidized Housing.
A person should need something more than a Skype conversation with a doctor in Cali before it is declared that the tenant should have the right to a dog, cat or 20′ python. Breed should matter, an 80# pit bull “comfort animal” in a complex doesn’t sound like it would be very comforting to the rest of the tenants. In a single family home I doubt it would be comforting to the neighbors.
Also, what about the rights of others. My wife has severe allergies to dogs and cats. A companion animal on a flight we were on that gave her such a bad reaction that they almost landed the plane in Cincinnati. A flight a month later ended with her leaving the plane on a stretcher after being given an Epipen and oxygen. While there was no dogs on that flight, the airline confirmed there was a dog on the flight just prior to ours. We have not flown since. I was at the Wall-Mart a couple of months ago a a scraggly animal wearing a “service animal” vest was basically running loose on a 10′ leash. It walked up and sniffed my leg, which was annoying. A short time later it licked a baby across the face. The mom was so angry that I thought the animal owner was going to leave the store in a condition that would require a real service animal. There are valid reasons that owners exclude pets.
Let me be clear that I am talking about people who are using this as a loophole to get around no pet policies and not legitimate trained service animals. A true service animal is better behaved than most tenants. The true service animals need to be accepted.