Jennifer T.,
You make some great points regarding the fees. We definitely conduct inspections (and have noted the current tenant is violating the lease by having another person living in the home, not on the lease).
Apologies in advance for the long thread below, just hope it helps someone.
In my particular situation, I've come to the conclusion, based on legislation I've read (I added some material below for those that want to read it but not go looking for it), that we won't return the "pet deposit". As for the pet rent, a tenant is required to start dialog with a landlord asking for a "reasonable accommodation", a letter stating the individual has a disability is not considered a request in itself. So, because both dogs are already allowed on the property (which is all the physicians letter states and that both dogs are ESAs), there is not a nexus to being reasonably accommodated financially. The tenant has already signed a lease, and has not asked we amend the pet rent. The letter does not state the tenant has encountered a financial loss due to the disability per the physicians letter. I'm taking a risk for the remainder of this lease but will not charge it if the tenant renews. I think the laws are ambiguous and could sway either way.
After my post I continued some research. Turns out, the state of Florida has NO legislation on "Emotional Support Animals", only "service animals". I read through the ADA, FHAct, HUD and Rehabilitation act as well as reached out to the Department of Justice and numerous local attourneys looking for answers. an "Emotional Support Animal", is not defined in any of those governing documents. It is mentioned but not from a definition perspective, only "Service animal" and "assistance animal". I think that leaves the law open to interpretation, especially when a practitioner cites the documents I mentioned, however fails to use the terminology within those documents.
To be clear, we don't have any issues with pets/support animals. I do think that the system is being abused and that property owners should have some rights. Of note, there are no breed restrictions to service animals or assistance animals and also an individual can have more than one.
I was happy to read that a Florida Senator just entered Senate Bill 1128 into the senate to address the abuse of emotional support animals. This would be the first of its kind in the state. I don't like that they use the term "Emotional Support Animal", and think the bill should use terminology from the health care system so that it is clear to tenants and to landlords. But its purpose is to halt one time transactions for "support animals" and instead require an individual to be under a physicians care vice a transactional fee. Its almost impossible to prove either way, but could be a deterrent for some. Its a good read, still leaves lots of questions. I've reached out to the senator with a few pointed questions for clarification but support.
Either way, I think that individuals with actual disabilities should be protected from those abusing a one time transactional letter from a physician, and property owners should also have rights and be protected, regardless of a tenant just being required to pay for damages. As many of you know taking a tenant to small claims court can be more costly than just fixing an issue yourself but that adds up.
There are loopholes and flaws in the system but I reached out here because I just couldn't find enough credible information in one place. I did find a myriad of websites targeting individuals to make their pets emotional support animals and a lot of misleading information on those websites that were not in line with the governing documents mentioned earlier in this text.
I found a lot more information, I will not make this thread any longer than I already have, but am more than happy to discuss things I've been learning along the way. I hope this thread is helpful to someone out there or at least gets the discussion going. My entire purpose in this was to ensure as a landlord, I do what is right according to the law, whatever that may be.
Cheers!
ADA:
Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws.
HUD/ADA
6. What is a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes of the Act?
A “reasonable accommodation” is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons with disabilities exactly the same as others will sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. To show that a requested accommodation may be necessary, there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested accommodation and the individual’s disability
7. Are there any instances when a provider can deny a request for a reasonable
accommodation without violating the Act?
Yes. A housing provider can deny a request for a reasonable accommodation if the request was not made by or on behalf of a person with a disability or if there is no disability related need for the accommodation. In addition, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied if providing the accommodation is not reasonable – i.e., if it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. The determination of undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis involving various factors, such as the cost of the requested accommodation, the financial resources of the provider, the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester, and the availability of alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs. When a housing provider refuses a requested accommodation because it is not reasonable, the provider should discuss with the requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the requester's disability-related needs without a fundamental alteration to the provider's operations and without imposing an undue financial and administrative burden. If an alternative accommodation would effectively meet the requester's disability-related needs and is reasonable, the provider must grant it. An interactive process in which the housing provider and the requester discuss the requester's disability-related need for the requested accommodation and possible alternative accommodations is helpful to all concerned because it often results in an effective accommodation for the requester that does not pose an undue financial and administrative burden for the provider.
