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!

Florida Law does not prohibit large increases in rent and has no rent controls.Now, on a more personal note - from what you are saying you need to go before the first or pay higher rents - since you have taken the steps to join here, I suggest you read and read some more, before you go looking for another place.

If it is cost prohibitive to have a utility do it, submeters are cheap and easy.Each unit should also have it's own individual water shut off, this is an ideal place to install a meter.

@Amanda Culleton check with your insurance on which breeds they cover and never accept a prohibited breed.

Are there any laws in MA that prohibit me from not renewing a lease of a tenant that did not have any violations?

But you could probably call something else unless your state's regulations prohibit.

You bring up a good point, that as part of a reasonable accommodation you are supposed to look for alternate insurance if a dog breed is prohibited.

I think I'll also follow up with a trampoline addendum, specifically prohibiting it ;)

I want to make sure you thoroughly understand this piece since you are going it alone.The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against prospective tenants and current tenants on the basis of the following characteristics or "protected classes": race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status.

In my apartment building I looked into building hookups for the W/D and it was prohibitively expensive.