All Forum Posts by: Rachel C.

Relevant news article!

Landlord must pay tenant whose allergies were triggered by neighbor's support dog, court rules

DES MOINES — An Iowa City tenant with a severe allergy to pet dander will receive damages of one month’s rent from a landlord who allowed another tenant to have an emotional support dog in a building with a no-pet policy, according to an Iowa Supreme Court ruling Tuesday.

In a 4-3 decision, the court overturned a district court ruling that concluded the landlord, 2800-1 LLC, shouldn’t have allowed the tenant to have a dog because of the other tenant’s pet allergies, but then dismissed the case because the law governing accommodations for emotional support animals wasn’t clear.

Chief Justice Susan Christensen, who wrote for the majority, said the two tenants — Karen Cohen, who had severe allergies, and David Clark, who had the dog — had the landlord in a “pickle” trying to accommodate both of them. However, the landlord, who isn’t identified by name in the ruling, should have denied the dog request because Cohen lived there first and the dog posed a direct threat to her health.

The court concluded that Cohen, who suffered allergic attacks, was entitled to her claims of breach of lease and breach of the “covenant of quiet enjoyment.”

The ruling shows Cohen has a “medically documented severe allergy” to pet dander that causes nasal congestion, swollen sinuses and excess coughing. Her allergic reaction is more severe when exposed to cats, requiring her to carry an epinephrine auto-injectable device to protect against anaphylactic shock.

She needed an apartment that didn’t allow pets and signed a lease from 2800-1 LLC on Nov. 11, 2015 for the term of July 2016 to July 2017. Cohen relied on the lease that stated no pets were allowed in the building.

On Jan. 18, 2016, Clark signed a lease to rent an apartment down the hall from Cohen during the same lease period, according to the ruling. Clark’s lease also included the no-pet provision.

I guess you can get sued if you do allow ESAs and sued if you don't.

Hi Nathan! Sorry! I didn't realize you would feel that the term 'click bait' would be harsh. Maybe just a different view on the topic? I do think I've seen many posts in this thread that anecdotally demonstrate that allowing pets have had some serious financial drawbacks for many landlords. Please don't take it personally if I point out additional aspects of this topic. It's an internet forum so this will happen sometimes and my views are not a statement about whether or not your advice is sound! It seems like you've taken a defensive tone and my intentions were not at all to make you feel bad or dismiss your advice. It's clear you've offered a lot of insightful and actionable advice for how someone might be able to mitigate risks of allowing pets and I agree that it might be an important way to increase profits. Or allowing pets could have financial repercussions as described by @IrenaBelkofer. (Ouch!) There are pros and cons to all strategies and allowing pets will work for many and not great for others. I know you like to keep mentioning how experienced you are and how many leases you have. (AWESOME!) So you are able to spread out risks in ways that help keep your ROI stable. Many members here don't have 400 doors. So if you only 5 doors and you run into a big pet problem, you simply may not have the reserves to necessarily recover in a financially beneficial way.

(PS- The 'it's a free country" made me happy. Hadn't heard that in an argument since I was a kid! Really brought me back to simpler times. Thank you.)

Hi Lisa,

You can see my previous post on this topic on the top of page two. (Link for your convenience.)

You need to look really carefully at your landlord insurance policy to see what is covered. Many policies have dangerous breed exclusions. If a person is fatally mauled or maimed or another pet is fatally mauled or maimed on your property and the breed is excluded by your insurance, you are liable for damages.

 Hi Matt, this is  a really good example of why I think blanket statements such as 'you SHOULD allow pets' needs to be understood as more of a click-bait title than sound advice. For me, I will probably consider allowing pets with some serious protections in place but for you, it's pretty clear that you aren't in a position to maintain your investment if pets start causing damage to your property. Maybe you could consult with an attorney that in your area that only represents landlords to see if there is a way you can navigate this.

Do you have any sources? Any sources whatsoever? Data perhaps? How about a financial analyst's opinion? Or we could even lower the bar as far as possible, how about a quote from a millennial saying, "My economic opportunities are the bomb, yo!" Anything besides your own personal 'old man shakes fist at cloud' rant?

HA! Yes, they do have a dog in this fight! And I completely agree. Data doesn't have a bias. However, that is only true if the data was collected without an end goal in mind. Unfortunately, in this case and many others, research needs to be funded and whoever funds it has a million ways to manipulate it. So understanding where the data came from is an important aspect to understanding what info is reliable.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Every landlord's investment strategy, tenant pool and risk tolerance is going to be different. For many people, allowing pets just isn't worth the hassle and will ultimately hurt their bottom line.

I think a more appropriate title to this post may have been: For some landlords, it may be worth considering allowing pets! 

Put in no valiant effort? I don't think it's accurate to make a blanket statement about an entire generation of people. Especially since they have suffered from one of the most financially devastating economic crises of our lifetimes.

I found some data directly from the US government to support my claim.

From the United States Senate Joint Economic Committee (<<< Click Link for Source)

"Millennials are still recovering from the financial crisis, which will likely put a permanent dent in their long-term economic security. The financial crisis, which began as many millennials were entering the workforce for the first time, has dampened economic opportunities for the entire generation. Negative effects include higher rates of underemployment and unemployment, wage stagnation or declines, and limited economic mobility. Millennials are less likely to earn more than their parents than any previous generation in American history. (Emphasis Added.)

In 2017, millennials earned a median income of roughly $20,010, while the current unemployment rate for millennials ages 25 to 34 and likely not in college is 4.2 percent.

The Economic State of Millennials in America
Rates of homeownership are falling among millennials, undercutting the generation’s ability to build long-term wealth. The financial crisis had a significant impact on young adult homeownership, with a large share of millennials opting to move back home to regain their economic footing.8 Millennials of color were disproportionately affected by the housing bubble and bursting, which damaged their creditworthiness and made it more difficult to obtain a mortgage."

I just pulled some relevant aspects from the report but feel free to review the entire report.

And now they have to contend with a pandemic that has caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket to 13.4%. (Data straight from the US department of labor.)

This is the highest level of unemployment since The Great Depression. (See chart below, data straight from US Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

And don't get me started on student load debt compared with previous generations.

SHANE - Do you have some trustworthy sources of information for your claim that 'Millennials have had one of the greatest opportunities to build wealth early in life that has been afforded to any generation in the last hundred years"? 

If so, I'd would love to see it! Please post!

@Michael Ablan

Does your landlord insurance policy have any breed restrictions?

@Victor Avelino

Many insurance companies exclude dogs that were specifically bred for aggression. It's an unpopular thing to say but pit bull-type dogs account for between 60 and 70% of all fatal human attacks even though they make up less than 6% of the total dog population in America. (Forbes article) So if you look carefully at your landlord's insurance policy, you may very well find that if you do allow these dogs into your properties, even if you were deceived about the breed by the tenant, the insurance company can deny covering any damages resulting from these types of dogs. Many shelters and tenants will intentionally try to mislabel the breed as 'lab-mix' or 'retriever mix' to try to get around breed-specific regulations designed to protect against dangerous dogs. 

So you asked what if something happens if there is a fatality or severe disfigurement at your property by a breed of dog that your insurance excludes? Well the insurance won't cover damages and you as the landlord get sued and are responsible for any civil judgements brought against you. It is a somewhat rare occurrence but can be financially catastrophic.

Definitely something to pay attention to if you allow dogs in your rentals.

@Nathan Gesner

Just a heads up, this study was funded by North Shore Animal League. So they had a conclusion in mind when they began this study which means any investors relying on this study should be very wary of taking it at face-value. NSAL tout themselves as being 'leaders in the no-kill movement' which at first seems like a humane policy but in reality, animals that are unplaceable due to health or violent behaviors are perpetually traumatized in these shelters since they can't be placed in homes. It is a harrowing life for them.

Big takeaway here - Conducting a 'study' that encourages landlords to allow pets in rental homes furthers the NSAL's financial interests because much of their sources of funding are dependent on being a no-kill shelter. They don't have landlord's best interests in mind. They are using the survey to grow and maintain their sources of revenue by keeping more pets out of shelters because they are expensive to keep. Best to just take these types studies with a proverbial grain of salt. There is a pet lobby actively encouraging policies on multiple fronts. Just in the U.S. pet economy alone, sales are projected to exceed $75 billion this year, up from $72.5 billion in 2018 and a doubling of 2005’s $36 billion. If more landlords allow pets, then this sector can continue to grow more rapidly especially since economic disparity and the multiple crises that have hobbled those unfortunate enough to be millennials make home-ownership completely out of reach for most of them.