you might want to check with an attorney on that one to see if you can deny it.  

First, you can deny an applicant for lying on their application.  

If the animal is a breed that would cost you money in higher insurance, or lost insurance, you can deny them because their request for a reasonable accommodation based on disability - is not "reasonable."  

The only million dollar lawsuit I can think of that I learned of recently, was a woman in SF who successfully sued her landlord for discrimination based on her request for a reasonable accommodation, which the management continually denied for years.  

Should you choose not to do something and then an event happens the insurance will use that against you to deny the claim or spend money defending it.The insurance company wants to be profitable and they do that by not paying out claims and trying to prevent them from happening to begin with.Residential investing is becoming more regulated by the government which is why I really do not like that asset class now.

Yeah, you can deny her based on not filling out the application, especially since you asked her to and she still didn't do it.  

According to my HELOC note agreement additional advances can be denied or amount of credit line can be reduced in following cases:1) Value of secured property declines significantly2) There is a reasonable believe that borrower won't be able to fulfill repayment obligations3) Maximum APR reached4) When a government body decides that taking addition advances constitutes unsafe banking practice+ 3 other minor clausesFew people I personally know have HELOCs open with pretty much the same terms.The most risky part (at least in my HELOC note agreement) is the following: if any time unpaid balance on the account exceeds amount of credit limit then the excess becomes due immediately.

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!

I already denied one of the applicants.  

I'm going to dig into that when I get a minute.I do know that police (Town Level) are using medical marijuana as grounds to deny gun licenses citing the the Federal Law that states that if you use illegal drugs you are "restricted" from getting a gun license.