Tenant objections to extra costs for a puppy (previous dog died)

Tenant objections to extra costs for a puppy (previous dog died)

Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes

Asking for BP landlord wisdom on handling a tenant argument regarding additional fee/security deposit for a puppy. I’m in GA.

I just approved a puppy at one of my rentals. This is not typical, but there was a reason for this. Tenants agreed to pay a higher non-refundable fee of $450, plus extra $450 for security deposit –to reflect additional risk associated with a puppy (also not fixed until 6 months). They also pay animal rent.

At another property, a 10-yr old German Shepherd just died yesterday. She was one of the three animals approved at this rental (another dog and a cat) less than a year ago. At move-in, tenants paid $250 non-refundable fee, plus $25 monthly rent for this dog. Today these tenants tell me they want to bring a German Shepherd puppy to “fill the void”. I’m fine with another German Shepherd, and my insurance is ok with it. Puppy is a different story. However, given puppy approval at the other rental, I felt obligated to be consistent and said I’ll ok the puppy as long as they pay additional $200 in non-refundable fees ($450 as charged at another property, minus $250 they already paid for the adult German Shepherd), plus additional $200 for Security Deposit (really should be $450, I miscalculated). These extra charges are meant to reflect the risks specifically associated with a puppy.

The tenants got very upset when they heard about the extra costs. They bombarded me with arguments that they already paid the fee ($250 for adult dog), and that the lease already makes them financially liable for any damages, and that they didn’t want their dog to die and it’s unfair to charge them extra, and that they trained puppies before and know how to raise them without damage to property, etc, etc. I explained that puppies naturally tend to cause more damage and we need to reflect that in extra fees/deposit, and that it could be unfair/discriminatory to the other tenants if we don’t charge them extra for the puppy. I also suggested to get on older dog (1+ yr) instead of a puppy and avoid any extra costs at all – but they objected to that as well. We ended the call with no resolution. 

Now I am looking for advice on this situation. Should I not charge them the extra fees/deposit for the puppy? In addition to my concerns about property damage and possible accusations of preferential treatment, I feel giving in would motivate these tenants to demand more concessions down the road. They are fairly good tenants, pay on time, property is fine, but are far from the best tenants I had due to their growing attitude. 

Thank you in advance for your input!

0Reply
108 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · Davenport, FL · Member since 2013 · 285 posts · 220 votes
6y

If they were paying for a pet and replaced it with another pet, why not just make it a wash? Unless it is written into the lease, I do not see how you can charge them more for a puppy.  If it is written in, then they agreed to it and it is completely acceptable.  I am all for charging more for pets as they tend to damage houses, but I don't find it necessary in this situation.  Best of luck however you choose to handle this issue! :)

See this reply in the discussion

27 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Concord, GA · Member since 2015 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y

    Stick with your system. They have choices, they can pay it and get a puppy, not pay it and move, get an older dog and not pay it. Don't buy the argument that "their" puppy won't do damage. Unless the thing is in a crate the whole time it's inside, the puppy will pee and chew on whatever is accessible. The only change (concession) I would possibly consider in this case is to make the additional amount a refundable deposit vs a non refundable fee.

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @John Teachout, thanks! I like what you suggested, it would be fair. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Davenport, FL · Member since 2013 · 285 posts · 220 votes
    6y

    If they were paying for a pet and replaced it with another pet, why not just make it a wash? Unless it is written into the lease, I do not see how you can charge them more for a puppy.  If it is written in, then they agreed to it and it is completely acceptable.  I am all for charging more for pets as they tend to damage houses, but I don't find it necessary in this situation.  Best of luck however you choose to handle this issue! :)

  • Real Estate Agent · Naples, FL · Member since 2016 · 298 posts · 268 votes
    6y

    Tough position to be in but a puppy will cause so much more damage. My arguement would be the previous fees and lease were associated to the previous dogs. I ran into this a long time ago and then changed my lease to be specific to the animal present at that time. I put in the lease the age and breed, also that if the dog passes away we do not accept puppies. Not that it will help you now but something for the future

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @David Stone, @Frank Procopio - thanks, guys! The Animal Addendum these tenants signed was specific to the animals I approved, and there is a stipulation that "No other animals may be added or substituted".  The fee they paid was for the specified animal. 

    To clarify, these extra funds are not going to make that much difference if the puppy is allowed to trash the house. I just want to ensure consistency in fee policy between different properties/tenants in regard to the same puppy privilege. Or am I wrong to look at it this way? Different house, different policies?

  • Rental Property Investor · Bloomington, MN · Member since 2019 · 404 posts · 542 votes
    6y

    @Ludmila M. You are correct in your thought process. The tenants are most likely also dealing with this from an emotional standpoint. Sympathize with them, but stick with the extra down payment and fee. Puppies cause more damage.

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    Thanks, @Corey Hawkinson, for supporting my approach. And you are correct about tenants' emotional standpoint - they are devastated by their loss. 

  • Nathan GesnerBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes
    6y

    @Ludmila M. Who's property is this? They either accept it or they don't. You are under no obligation to replace a mature dog with a puppy, period.

    I do not allow animals under one year old. Too many accidents, chewing, digging, etc.

    The DIY Landlord Book4.7248 Reviews
  • Rental Property Investor · New York City · Member since 2019 · 703 posts · 538 votes
    6y

    If you already collected the money for a dog why would you collect it again for a replacement dog/puppy?  Its up to you but if they are good tenants and keep the place nice would you rather they leave?  

    Especially today with these crafty tenants receiving letters from doctors about needing an emotional support dog.  

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    Same here, @Nathan Gesner - no animals under 1 yr of age, until my other rental got one approved (separate story). At that point I felt that I must be consistent and consider a puppy with these guys too. They are pretty responsible pet owners, but it doesn't negate the risk that the puppy is going to sharpen her teeth all over my house. 

    Of course there is a minor concern that if I push too hard, they might just buy a fake Emotional Support certificate and bring her in totally free. 

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @Anthony Rosa, I must have been typing my previous response when you wrote yours regarding fake letters. I agree on that one and that thought did cross my mind.

  • Rental Property Investor · New York City · Member since 2019 · 703 posts · 538 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Ludmila M.:

    @Anthony Rosa, I must have been typing my previous response when you wrote yours regarding fake letters. I agree on that one and that thought did cross my mind.

    @Lumila M. - Unfortunately, there are people that play the system but the letters aren't fake, they come from an MD.

  • Rental Property Investor · Davenport, FL · Member since 2013 · 285 posts · 220 votes
    6y

    @Ludmila M. That makes sense and I don’t think you should have different policies for different houses, that only opens you up to possible discrimination. Do you have your pet policy posted somewhere where prospective tenants have access to your rules prior to applying? The tenants could be upset because they feel new rules are just being thrown in that they weren’t aware of. If they were aware of (or had reasonable access to) your pet policy, then they have no right to complain and you have no obligation to budge.

  • Realtor · ND · Member since 2019 · 54 posts · 31 votes
    6y

    I really should be in the lease that just that particular dog, (name and breed in the lease) is approved. If they want another dog it is not automatically approved. A lease addendum must be done and you should be able to charge whatever you think is fair for this "new tenant" being added to the lease.  I feel like the charge you suggest is fair. Just make sure the new dog is listed on the new lease if approved. 

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @David Stone, you are making a good point and I will start implementing this approach. I have a written policy but it's not posted anywhere. Definitely adding it to my To Do list. Thank you!

    @Ben Kappel, this is exactly what I do. I mentioned earlier that the Animal Addendum we signed is specific to a particular animal, and it stipulates that no other animal can be added or substituted. The new dog would be under a different Animal Addendum. Tenants just feel they should be entitled to swap one dog for another regardless of the fact that the new dog is a puppy.

  • Rental Property Investor · Ankeny, IA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y

    @Ludmila M.

    “Then don’t get another dog”.

    Tenants don’t get to negotiate the rent, deposit, or fees.

  • Rental Property Investor · Ankeny, IA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y

    @David Stone

    Puppies piss everywhere and cause more damage. The extra fee seems appropriate to me.

  • Nathan GesnerBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes
    6y

    Some people completely ignore fair housing laws and some people take them too far and apply them to areas where they do not apply. Just because you allow one tenant to have a puppy does not mean you are automatically required to allow every tenant to have a puppy. I have really good tenants in low-class properties and I would not mind letting them have a puppy. at the same time I have mediocre tenants in really nice properties where I would not allow a puppy. Things like that are very situation dependent and in no way a violation of fair housing.

    The DIY Landlord Book4.7248 Reviews
  • Rental Property Investor · Erie, PA · Member since 2018 · 6k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    6y

    Tenants arguing with me changes the dynamic of the agreement . I would not put up with that these days if they don’t like my rules they can find another place .

  • Member since 2019 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y

    @Ludmila M.

    In the future, have them sign a pet agreement indicating a specific pet is approved at specific cost based off city license #. New pet, new license, new fees or else it doesn’t get approved. Pet agreement states no interchanging / replacing animals and that this individual animals approvals does not guarantee new animals being approved etc.

    I also require a clear photo of the animal showing scale prior to move in.

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @Account Closed, my Animal Addendum is specific for each animal, not generic, and also has a statement about not allowing substitution. The only thing it doesn't address specifically is death of an animal, and I'm certainly going to correct this. Animal photos are also required. I don't use the word "pet" in any of my documents.

    @Dennis M., I was surprised this argument took place. These tenants, while somewhat high maintenance, were never argumentative. I think they were just too emotional at the moment (the wife cried throughout the call) and crossed the line. I sympathize with their situation, but the debate and their tone is not acceptable and I plan to address this.

    @Anthony Wick, my thought exactly. I communicated something similar to them, just not in those words -"You don't have to get a puppy, get an adult dog and you won't be required to pay additional fees".  But of course they are not interested in adult dog.

  • Rental Property Investor · Erie, PA · Member since 2018 · 6k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    6y

    Don’t take it personal .Some times  You gotta look past that and remember your “ why” 

  • Rental Property Investor · Huntsville, AL · Member since 2013 · 419 posts · 323 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Nathan Gesner:

    Some people completely ignore fair housing laws and some people take them too far and apply them to areas where they do not apply. Just because you allow one tenant to have a puppy does not mean you are automatically required to allow every tenant to have a puppy. I have really good tenants in low-class properties and I would not mind letting them have a puppy. at the same time I have mediocre tenants in really nice properties where I would not allow a puppy. Things like that are very situation dependent and in no way a violation of fair housing.


    Dogs are not a protected class. Honestly, you don't have to treat people the same as far as pets. Allowing or not allowing them doesn't transfer to other tenants unless the landlord allows it.
  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 110 posts · 37 votes
    6y

    @Mike S., thanks, good to know!

  • Chicago, IL · Member since 2018 · 546 posts · 227 votes
    6y

    Sorry to hear you're dealing with this situation. Just be happy they're not taking the ESA approach with you. The Fair Housing Act states that tenants with emotional support animals cannot be charged extra fees for having their support animals. Based on FHA, if she's claiming the dog as an ESA you must allow the dog, even if you have a no-pet policy, and you can't charge extra pet rent, pet fee, or pet deposit.

    That said I know a lot of landlords who have run into issues with the ESA process; there's a difference between extra fees and cost to cover destruction of property, and as far as breeds, some insurance companies are a bit more reluctant to insure the property if certain breeds are residing there. I'd definitely lean on legal counsel locally to get a better idea of what options you have but for now, stick to your rules as they currently are.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.