All Forum Posts by: Colton S.

Being young myself, I ALWAYS get looked over and people talk to me as if I know absolutely nothing. We renovated our entire house and I was the "acting" general contractor for everything. People would go to lengths to elaborate on such basic things, or ask to speak to my parents about it so they could better explain it.

Generally people assume I have no money, so they don't want to work for me.

@Jack B. Just a side note, since you are in Washington.

"The rule in Washington is that the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dangerous or vicious animal is liable; the landlord of the owner, keeper, or harborer is not. Clemmons v. Fidler, 58 Wn. App. 32, 35-36, 791 P.2d 257, review denied, 115 Wn.2d 1019, 802 P.2d 125 (1990); Markwood v. McBroom, 110 Wash. 208, 211-12, 188 P. 521 (1920); Shafer v. Beyers, 26 Wn. App. 442, 446-47, 613 P.2d 554, review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1018 (1980)."

https://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/washington-state-dog-bite-law

@Jack B. That is a serious over statement. I understand having a no dogs policy, that I can not dispute.

However, to throw a whole group of people under the bus and calling them the biggest loser of society is a MASSIVE over statement.

It really is a shame to see people that make statements like that in the world. Jump off your high horse and come down here with us regular folk.

I own two pit bulls and I am a good, clean, safe guy who certainly is not a loser in society. I would argue that most people with large breed dogs are especially when there is other people on this on forum post that own them.

Also, the law suit you referred to the lady literally left her sliding glass door open.. Literally anything could have came in the house.

"For the first time in her renewed motion, Gorman argued that, as a matter of law, she had no legal duty to close the door."

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2013/08/washington-court-of-appeals-upholds-verdict-sue-gorman-mauling.html

First, I wouldn't recommend a lease that auto renews for a full year, there is always a benefit to going month to month, just in case you wanted to get rid of them.

Second, If you don't have the notice, then too bad. They are in violation of the lease. See if she has proof of sending it, certified mail receipt, etc.

Charge them what you would for cancelling early, as your lease should outline.

This is an interesting situation. I would say that charging him for the 3 days is debatable, there doesn't seem to be enough information to say you should've charged him for that.

What he could and should be charged for were the locks changed, and new remotes. If he wants his vacuum then by all means, tell him to come get it.

What was the reasoning for charging him for the three days?

Plus, since they are there like it's been stated already, they could just flat out say that they are service animals and you cannot do anything about it.

As a good business decision, I would suggest working with the tenant to find a compromise that is a win-win for everyone.

@Nick Aderman In the future, if you choose to not rent to tenants with large dogs, so be it, no one can be upset about that. For now, it looks like you might have one for a period of time.

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

Some of you are letting your emotions about Pit Bulls get in the way of logic. For example, @Sarah D. the rate of dog bites is not the issue and you know it. It is severity. Anyone would rather have a Chihuahua bite them 10 times than a Pit Bull once. Most likely nobody will get sued if a Chihuahua sinks a couple tiny teeth in, but if you are a mauled by a Pit Bull, you are going to sue. You are not just going to sue the renter, your lawyer will go after the deep pockets, which is the owner. That is why many insurance companies will not cover dangerous breeds. It is due to payout risk and they have statistics to prove it. Every person I have talked to who owns Pit Bulls says how nice they are. They are good with kids. They keep them caged or chained and the list goes on. The truth is that there are regular documented cases of "great" Pit Bulls breaking free and hurting or killing. This summer at a local state park, a Pit Bull broke free from a chain and killed a small dog, hurting the dog owner in the process. The family watched their beloved family pet get shredded to pieces by a Pit Bull. The owners of the Pit Bull said it was chained up and never hurt anyone. It was a kind dog. Even good owners and good dogs have a bad day. The difference is a Pit Bull is very powerful and their bad day ends much differently than a Chihuahua. Bottom line is that even breeding Pit Bulls is irresponsible. The dogs have too much physical strength and genetic predisposition to violence.

Now here is the real problem with big dogs in general. They can rip apart your house. Even a kind dog that is bored, will tear walls apart. When they pee on the floor, the volume of pee can soak into the sub floor causing thousands of dollars damage. I have seen large dogs scratch ceramic tile with their nails - just from innocently playing. Big dogs are big trouble. The proof is everywhere if you research it, so being naïve and thinking since your dog is wonderful that all others are, is going to be a mistake that you will someday pay for.

My advice is raise this tenants rent to an uncomfortable level. Get yourself proper insurance. Inspect the house twice a year. Hope they leave. Tenants are easy to find, so don't be worried when they give notice.

I have posted my stance on this issue, so I will spare you the trouble of reading it again. (;

My only statement for this issue is that the dogs are already there, and they have been for 4+ years. The unit is in good condition and the tenant sounds willing to cooperate. OP is already having to seek new insurance, regardless if he gets rid of the tenant tomorrow. Since the factors are in play already, why remove a paying, decent tenant? Just make sure you follow the proper procedures for renting to any tenants with large dogs and you will be just fine.

Your argument is that a pit bull can have bad days, I don't disagree, but you have to understand that all dogs can have bad days, no matter the breed, training, temperament or environment.

When the dog passes or tenants move THEN come in and set up your pet policy and make all the needed repairs. In the mean time, charge a pet deposit, do frequent apartment inspections and follow what has been said in this forum already.

I'm sorry, but a vacant unit in a slow season that you will have to do repairs on when you had a good tenant is not always worth it.

However, to each his own. I understand everyone has their own views on the situation. (:

Adam Bonoff Some insurance companies have a restricted breed list, yes. But a large number also have no direct breed list and just ask if the dog has bitten anyone, if it's a no then you are fine. A few that come to mine are State Farm, USAA, Farmers Insurance and All State. I completely agree, you need to disclose upfront if they care and then take the proper precautions as a landlord and tenant.

Adam Bonoff Why do you say no insurance company will insure you for that risk? There is plenty out there that will and do it every day. I'm curious if it's based on your area or not.

@Frank S. To each his own, I cannot win you over. In the situation of what the OP asked, we all would need a bit more information to make a decision. I would lean towards keeping the tenant if market rents are similar, the unit is well kept, and the owner has insurance, they have insurance, and the dog is well behaved/hasn't bitten anyone.

I did find this quick bit of information on who is liable in the event of a dog bite. Take your proper precautions and you will be fine.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter4-7.html