I told the judge at the eviction that I didn't care what he ruled,because I would take the case to the Supreme Court.  

The legality of such bank charges has been tested at supreme court levels and found to be consonant with the doctrine of making the bank whole for the contractual breach. 

tenant A loves dogs but the building policy prohibits pets. one day, tenant A notices thru the front window that tenant B moved in with 2 dogs (a pit bull mix and a german sheperd mix) with the PM present and no issue was apparently raised; landlord even pet and played with the dogs. tenant A feels betrayed and goes out and buys a yorkie. landlord finds out and issues notice of breach of contract and to vacate or restore the apt to its pet-free requirements.tenant A contronts landlord and demands explanation as to why tenant B has 2 big dogs but tenant A cant have 1 tiny one. landlord discloses tenant B provided proof that each of the 2 dogs are emotional support animals.tenant A asks tenant B why does she have 2 emotional support animals, and for a referral to a professional that could also recommend 2 or 3 dogs so he can keep his yorkie and get a playmate for his and maybe even the yorkie's 'emotional support' each.tenant B is insulted and files a HUD complaint that landlord shared that she needs emotional support (per Fair Housing Act, landlords may not divulge that a tenant has any disability to any third party).meanwhile, tenant C whose toddler was soon after mauled to death by tenant B's sheperd mix, has just won a case in California Supreme Court finding the landlord to be a statutory owner of the dog since it was accepted onto the premises simply based on a letter written by a 'pet therapist' without regard - and consequentially, with negligence - to the other tenants' safety and thus responsible for $2,000,000 in compensation to tenant C for the loss of precious human life, regardless of whether landlord was negligent or not, and regardless of whether animal was a service/support animal or pet.landlord, having lost his countersuit against tenant B for vicious 'support' animal's lethal actions, files claim for his homeowner's insurance to cover the $250 million he owes tenant C but claim is denied altogether on basis that building had a no pet policy and dogs were not declared and the pit bull mix, though recommended, was never even licensed.last but not least, landlord receives summons, subpoenas, etc from HUD and appears for trial in Federal Civil Court. judge finds landlord guilty of divulging that tenant has a disability and orders landlord to pay the statutory $16,000 for one county of housing discrimination,  plus 300,000 in actual damages for the complainant (and of course, her attorneys fees) for she is emotionally scarred for life!

While Matt wants to blame President Obama it is important to understand that the Supreme Court has allowed disparate impact claims in housing cases. 

No wonder it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I think it sets a bad precedence and I've found that the ole 'give 'em and inch and they take a mile' cliche tends to be supremely true with most tenants.

Also note that this was a unanimous decision of a very "blue" state Supreme Court.http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/201...See Also, San Francisco Housing Authority:http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Housing-Auth...See Also this review article:http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent......paying particular attention, perhaps, to this: "Nonetheless, banning legal firearm possession in public housing enables government interference with otherwise legal gun ownership, strips residents of an important means of self-defense, and very likely

I know this is an old post, but I've done extensive research in this area, and there's a specific supreme court case of oxford house v city of edmonds that ruled against the arbitrary occupancy limit that the City of Edmonds had in its ordinance (max of 5 unrelated persons).  

There was a recent Supreme Court case this June on it.

A walk-through with my contractors puts this house in supreme condition with 40K.