What kind of language and fees would you include in a lease regarding pets? I did not intend to allow pets. However, one applicant has a black lab, which I have also owned and had good luck with, and she seems like a very responsible pet owner and person. I am considering writing an addendum of special permission for her to have a pet. What might I include in that addendum and what fees should i charge for having a pet? The dog is an 18 mo old black lab, supposedly just past its puppy stage, but I know black labs are puppies for a few years. However, I also think they tend to be well behaved, obedient and non-aggressive dogs. Still...what risks am I taking?
I have all tile floors, new baseboards and trim, new doors, new paint, new kitchen cabinets and new appliances.
Thank you
@Jon S. People with dogs, other than service dogs, are not a protected class. And the service dogs are only included in a protected class as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled person - so the protected class is a disabled person.
So, I don't see any problem with saying yes to one dog, or no to another dog, based on anything you want. Unless, it could be seen as a reason to discriminate against the owner of the dog. If your blanket rule for one property is no dogs, unless they're verified service dogs, it shouldn't be a problem.
Let us know what the lawyer says, and good luck!
By the way, some people raise their rents above market and say they'll accept dogs, to get the higher rent. I have a friend in the Bay Area who does this. She'll allow large breed dogs that aren't on restricted breed lists and she has no problem keeping rented at above-market rates. She doesn't have a separate pet fee, she just advertises it at the higher rent, with "large breed dogs negotiable."
I determine it on a case by case basis, like you.
I usually charge $50 per small critter and $100 per large one as a fee (one time), and I list this in the first section of my contract under TERMS.
I state it like this in the contract (my recent rental April 1):
"In consideration for a pet, RESIDENT(S) agree to pay an additional fee of $ 100.00 (two small pets, one cat and one dog) which is not to be refunded or considered compensation for any future destruction or damages to the property."
If you have a fairly clear section about deposit and additional charges beyond deposit regarding damages to your residence, you are probably going to be ok. The biggest risk is not really from a physical damage, but more of a "pet smell" like smoking, that would cost you a new paint job or carpet (although a 80 lb lab could shred hardwood floors, to). Typically, I don't go overboard with additional verbiage regarding the pets...they're generally not the biggest issue when it comes to damage or problems, lol!
Blessings with that.
Thank you, that gives me some ideas where to go with this. One of my units has refinished hardwood flooring in the living room, so I will not allow someone renting that unit to have a dog. But the other units have all tile everywhere, so if they seem like they would be a good renter, I will consider doing a pet clause for them.
Thank you again!
If all your units are in the same building it would be discrimination if you allowed one tenant to have a dog and not all the other tenants as well. Once you make an exception you are obligated to remove the no pet rule from your lease for the entire building in most states.
$400 animal/pet fee for first then 200 each additional animal/pet maximum two. $35 additional fee for each pet.
I list it as a fee and not a deposit because it's not refundable.
We are currently turning over appropriate with Hardwood Floors With renters that have been there for eight years with small dog They themselves destroyed the floors more than the dog. Resurfacing those floors is going to cost me about two grand.
Would avoid large dogs. We have hardwoods in our personal residence with a 60 pound German Shepherd and I would not want my rental floors to look like my personal house does.
Jonathan, thanks for your post and your experiences. What did the tenants do to destroy the wood floor, more than the dog? Also, what effect did the small dog have on the wood floor? They rented the same place for 8 years? That's impressive.
If all your units are in the same building it would be discrimination if you allowed one tenant to have a dog and not all the other tenants as well. Once you make an exception you are obligated to remove the no pet rule from your lease for the entire building in most states.
Greg, I am in Florida and I hope you are wrong in Florida. But I will be checking on that! Thank you for the heads up!!!
@Jonathan G. if I understand correctly, you charge a $400 non-refundable fee for the first pet, and a $200 non-refundable fee for the 2nd pet, and on top of the one time fees you also charge an additional $35/pet/mo. Is that correct? What repair or cleaning expenses do you typically run into as a result of allowing pets? Does the fee cover the cost of the repairs? Or are the repair costs additional? Thank you
yes that is correct. I started the monthly fee last year. pets are a hassle for me as a home owner but we allow them (2 max). Our properties are 2 and 3 stories (~3K sq ft) and dogs pretty much stink / ruin floors however, responsible pet owners willing to pay fees typically have been good long term tenants. I am turning over a property this month after 8 yr tenants who always paid rent. Refinishing main level Brazilian cherry hardwoods, $2100. Replacing all finished basement carpet $2000. Damages come out of deposit minus depreciation of useable carpet life.
dog nails with repetitive scratches all over. Over time, they add up. Water bowl with chronic overspill leading to wood swelling. In regards to renters, they actually had metal leg bar stools in one area. Deep chair / table scratches in another area. Gauges in 1 other area. Hardwoods are a pain for upkeep but I list properties at or above top market and provide a very nice place long term renters seem to appreciate. I could leave the floors as is and likely rent out but for somewhat less
If you are going to allow dogs, then know that any breed can be aggressive and any breed can bite. The dog that mauled the Frenchwoman who was the recipient of the world's first face transplant was a Labrador retriever. In fact, Cocker Spaniels are relatively more aggressive to people than are pit bulls.
Dogs are like people, and every dog has its own personality. While some breeds may have a genetic predisposition to certain kinds of aggression (towards other dogs, or in defense of their owners, for example), how the dog owner manages their dog and the individual temperament of the dog matter more than the breed. That said, some homeowners' insurance companies have banned certain breeds, so be aware of your own policy when you rent to people with dogs, and/or make sure your insurance company doesn't practice breed discrimination. I have State Farm and they don't discriminate based on breed.
It's my personal opinion that children cause more damage than dogs. SO, if you are going to rent to people with dogs, then you may as well simply charge an amount for rent that you feel comfortable with for people with dogs, rather than tacking on extra fees and pet rent for a pet. You can advertise your rental as pets OK on a case by case basis. Then you make sure that you like the individual pet, that it is well mannered, spayed/neutered, clean, flea-treated, up to date on its vaccines, and has good references from previous landlords. I also require tenants to buy renter's insurance, as I'm more concerned about liability than damage.
If people in your market tend to have pets, then you will do better with this strategy than by charging all sorts of extra fees and rents. You may even have people interested in renting your unit for the price you advertised, and they don't even have pets. But non-refundable pet fees are a real turnoff to most pet owners, and rightly so. Why should someone with a dog and no children have to pay more than someone with children and no dog, in the event that their dog could cause some damage? An extra refundable security deposit is much more fair, because it doesn't penalize pet owners simply for being pet owners, AND your tenants will be incentivized to keep your unit in excellent shape so they can get their full deposit back.
Furthermore, at least in Oregon, a savvy tenant would have a legal claim for a full security deposit refund if the only damage was from pets, and you charged a separate "pet deposit" or "pet fee" that didn't cover the entire cost of actual damages sustained. At least, that's according to a landlord association here in town. Instead, just charge a higher total "security deposit," and any damage sustained by pets can be covered by the security deposit.
And while charging extra pet rent is legal and widespread, it just screams "exploitation" from a tenant's point of view. If you want to have a mutually respectful relationship with your tenants, one in which your tenant wants to stay for a long time because they feel trusted and in turn think you are trustworthy, don't come up with all these extra fees for people with pets. If you roll it into the overall rent, they won't know the difference and they'll feel grateful to live in a place where the landlord isn't apparently nickel and diming them to death.
You'll have the same cashflow as though charging pet rent, but your tenant relationship won't be built on a foundation of distrust. (And this is where other landlords on BP will feel compelled to reply with defensive comments about their pet rent, but that's OK. What's good for them is good for them, but I stand by this statement.)
Responsible pet owners are the best tenants because they are grateful to have found a landlord who will accept them, and they'll not only work extra hard to make sure your rent is paid on time and the place is well taken care of, but they will also stay a while if they feel they aren't being taken advantage of.
Just pet-proof your property and screen well. Or don't accept pets--because that's less competition for the best tenants for me.
@Jon S. Labs are puppies until they're about 3 years old, and they chew on everything. My ex was a duck hunter. So, you could end up with chewed baseboards, chewed up carpet, doors - or nothing.
I would charge a hefty deposit, say twice the rent, and not say that any particular part of it is a "pet" deposit. The reason for not separating them, is then you could end up having to explain what damage was from what.
In CA, pet fees are not legal. Landlords charge them here, but if a tenant takes them to court over them, they'd have to refund them all. I don't know about FL.
I'd also require renter's insurance, including liability for dog bites, if there is a special rider for that - you could check into that. One of our sweet labs bit a friend of my ex's one day out of the blue. So, it's not likely to happen with the lab, but it could.
Oh, and you might want to be sure it's spayed/neutered and require that, and proof from the vet that the dog is spayed/neutered.
But, the biggest risk in having a dog, is damage. House, yard, you name it. And your best way to recoup for that damage is with the security deposit, in my opinion.
Oh, and as far as language, I agree to keep it simple. Something like, "Landlord has agreed to allow Tenant to have her pet labrador retriever, currently 18 months old, named ________________. Tenant has provided proof of the dog being spayed/neutered.
Tenant agrees to keep current renter's insurance during tenancy, to cover any liability, including any liability resulting from her pets.
Tenant agrees to pay twice the rent as a total security deposit to cover all and any type of damage during the Tenancy, including damage done by the dog.
Something like that.
@Jonathan G. This is all excellent insight and information. Some very different views on the same topic! So I can see this is up to the individual landlord to determine. I'm going to ask the attorney how much discretion I have in this matter, ie, can I deny one tenant and permit another tenant, based on the one unit having wood floors and another unit having more resilient tile floors? Personally, I think this pet thing is starting to sound like a real mess. I'm an animal lover, but I don't want to be replacing wood baseboards, door trim, or even kitchen cabinets. The downtime required before being ready for the next tenant can be expensive if it doesn't get done fast. And it's not always possible to get all materials and labor quickly. Just food for thought. I do have one potential tenant inquiring about the large lab, and I'm not sure how I'm going to respond now. But this info and insights and warnings is invaluable, thank you all.
@Jon S. People with dogs, other than service dogs, are not a protected class. And the service dogs are only included in a protected class as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled person - so the protected class is a disabled person.
So, I don't see any problem with saying yes to one dog, or no to another dog, based on anything you want. Unless, it could be seen as a reason to discriminate against the owner of the dog. If your blanket rule for one property is no dogs, unless they're verified service dogs, it shouldn't be a problem.
Let us know what the lawyer says, and good luck!
By the way, some people raise their rents above market and say they'll accept dogs, to get the higher rent. I have a friend in the Bay Area who does this. She'll allow large breed dogs that aren't on restricted breed lists and she has no problem keeping rented at above-market rates. She doesn't have a separate pet fee, she just advertises it at the higher rent, with "large breed dogs negotiable."