All Forum Posts by: Sam Leon

also there seems to be a dozen concurrent threads on this topic with only slight variances.

I wish there is a way all these discussions can be distilled, digested and build on to get us landlords more educated.  Right now it seems to be all over the places.

That depends on the state.  You may not be able to insist the proof of need come from their regular doctor.

In my state (Florida), they are just now looking at a new senate bill requiring the certification is NOT from someone who the "disabled" has seen only exclusively for a fee.  It hasn't even passed yet.  Until then many landlords' hands are cuffed.

(May 17, 2004) states that a doctor or “other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the tenant's disability" may provide the verification of the tenant's disability.

That is an exceedingly low bar. A peer support group is a joke? So practically anyone can provide the verification needed.  My neighbor may be able to verify that I need 50 rattle snakes to stay mentally stable.  So the online instant certification for $30 may be "Legit" under the letter of the law even though we know it's a scam.

For rental properties, ADA does not apply.  ADA is more about public places like restaurants, libraries, clubs, schools etc...

The relevant federal regulations is HUD's Fair Housing Act, and Emotional Support Animals are covered and protected under that. If you reject ESA, you will violate FHA.

As far as I can tell there are four classifications.

Service Animals - those are trained animals that provides a specific need to their owners such as seeing eye dogs, medical alerts etc...there are online companies that one can order a vest for $20 and people put on their dogs to disguise them as SAs, when they are not.  You cannot deny someone with an SA.

Emotional Support Amimals - any animals that is prescribed by a LMHP to ease anxiety of it's owner.  Many online web sites will provide a letter of certification for a fee so this is a very easy vehicle for someone to get their pets certified as ESAs to be able to fly with their pets and to be able to move into no pet rentals.  A significant number of those are scams but the problem is it's very difficult to prove it's a scam.

Therapy dogs - those are dogs trained to comfort elderly or terminally ill people at hospices, hospital, nursing homes, those are not specifically linked to an owner and are not protected by reasonable accommodation.

Working dogs - those are police K9, trained to sniff bombs, track and retrieve, guard etc...and also are not protected by reasonable accommodation.

Technically, IMO, you can't say they lied by not disclosing their pet or dog because they can say they don't think of it as a pet or regular dog, it's an ESA.  You should have had an application that ask if they have any animals, not pets.  You also should have something in the lease that require your approval if they have to move any animal in.  In the case of a SA or ESA, you as the landlord has the right to verify the SA or ESA, by request to see documentation and call to verify with the provider to make sure the certification is legit, valid, active and current, and wellness documentation that the animal is in good health, free of parasite, flea, ticks, vaccinated etc...

SA and ESA are very different.

The problem is at this moment, the qualification or threshold for an applicant or tenant to demonstrate a need for an ESA is VERY LOW, TOO LOW, SO LOW that they can easily establish a need and provide written documentation.

(May 17, 2004) states that a doctor or “other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the tenant's disability" may provide the verification of the tenant's disability.

That is an exceedingly low bar.  A peer support group?  So practically anyone can provide the verification needed?

So the online instant certification for $30 may be "Legit" under the letter of the law.

If you do not accept those, do you not violate FHA?

I don't hire tenants to do work on the property because of many unpredictable things could come from it.

(1) Who owns the result of the work?  They did the improvements, they could put a lien on the house for unpaid work.  There is a significant risk of this end up being work not fully paid due to incomplete work.  Most likely scenerio he works on the floor a little bit every weekend when he feels like it and 4 months into it your floor is half done.

(2) As others have suggested, work in exchange for deposit means no deposit.  Would you rent to someone with no deposit?  He punches a hole in the wall throw a baseball through the window and you have no recourse?

(3) If you hire a regular floor installer and you don't like the work you can fire him and go a different route, if the tenant moves in and half way through you don't like the work then what?  You can't fire him you already waived the deposit, you can't evict him either.  What if during the install he cuts a water pipe and you have water damages?  Who pays for that you or him?

What this boils down to is you are offering to prepay him (by waiving deposit and first month's rent), he gets a place to live while he works with no deadline and pressure, and you are stuck with the work because you prepaid with no leverage.

I myself am navigating through these myself and am far from an expert.

I do know from what I have read it seems you can't refuse a ESA by just claiming insurance bans it.  You may be able to document an increase in premium by your carrier, or if they drop you for non-compliance to their banned breeds list and you have to find a different carrier with additional cost, and turn that into "financial burden and hardship" as the reason to not accept an ESA.  If someone knows the answer please chime in.

Yes most ESA claims are bogus.  The trick is to find out which is which without being unfair and intrusive to the real ones, as well as being able to smell it ahead of time so you won't be surprised in mid lease.

In addition, I am also confused by some suggesting that an animal policy does not apply to service dogs or ESA.  That doesn't seem logical to me.  Is this true?  True, many landlords have a pet policy, collect a pet deposit and pet fee, which an ESA is not.  So you can't charge additional for an ESA, but surely you should be able to have an addendum, OK call it an animal addendum to require general things like the tenant is still responsible for cost of any animal damages, or flea/tick treatment of the property when they vacate, or keeping up with vaccination, must pick up after the dog etc...on the other hand, let's use "pick up after dogs" as an example...if the tenant is blind and has a seeing eye dog, how would the tenant go pick up after the dog?  He can't see where the dog went.  So clearing some rules are not possible or even reasonable.  Anyone?

I am sure this is entirely correct. Insurance carriers do ban certain breeds, but that's for pets, as soon as an animal is designated an ESA, then they are no longer considered pets. Insurance companies can increase your premiums due to added risks or cancel your policy completely, then you can claim additional financial burden and hardship to deny the animal, but from the searches I have done, this additional financial burden and hardship is difficult to prove and is vague. Furthermore, even insurance carriers are worried about FHA violations and may subject themselves to lawsuits if they prohibit breeds and a tenant or owner has a valid and genuine ESA designation.

I am curious what your your deductible is at that property.  At all my rental properties I carry the comprehensive insurance plus flood insurance.  For example at one property the comprehensive is alone is $4500 a year even with a 5% deductible.

So for a property that you insured say 300K on the 5% deductible is 15K.  Even if you go 2% deductible it's 6K.

Add to that most policies now have exclusions.  Some of my rental properties have extensive damages outside, such as down trees, fence collapsed, sheds blown over and none of those are covered since they are not part of the main structures.  I had to cut down trees, remove debris all over, rebuilt fences, erect new mailboxes, and none of these are covered.  I have a hard time seeing how a few shingles will make your deductible unless it's zero.

Irma really hit me hard all my damages came under deductibles on all my properties.  One was at 17K and I was at 15K that was the closest.

On top of that of the claims I filed even none of them meet deductible so I got zero from it, all the carriers mailed me letters demanding to see documentation of the repairs including licensed contractor official invoices, before and after pictures etc...so you won't "pile on" the claim on the next hurricane.

There is also one carrier I think it's called People's Trust which is becoming popular now in FL and there is a lot of talk about their "First Response", since if you go with them you have to call their first response team or you forfeit your claims.  I kept hearing from people that their first response team is always on hold or would schedule something a long time off to come which in some cases like a hole in the roof you can't wait.  If you attempt self repairs or get someone else to do it again you forfeit your claim completely so many people steering clear of People's Trust insurance.

Isn't it usually the reverse?  You want to rent to less number of occupants so there is less wear and tear, less usage of utilities (if you pay for it)?  Why would they deny based on them being a couple?  Makes no sense?  Unlikely for an apartment complex to give such a biased answer to a tenant.

It's an issue we all are dealing with.  I current have a no pet policy on a house and the applicant has 2 cats and 2 dogs.  When I asked if he has any pet he said 2 cats and 2 dogs.  I said no pet is allowed at this property she then claimed they are ESAs, all four or them are ESAs!

I posted some information in another thread with identical titles here:

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/505...

Basically, as landlords the ways I have been able to figure out how to flush out those with real ESAs vs those who just claims they have ESAs either with a bogus letter or paid an online service to provide ESA certification are:

(1) Tell them you do not accept any online ESA certification.  It must be certification provided by a LMHP that is actively practicing, currently licensed, and the certification must be dated and valid for the entire period of the lease agreement, and you must be able to call the LMHP to verify.  You cannot ask about the nature of the disability but you must be able to call and verify that there is a disability and the link of the animal to the disability.

(2) Someone has suggested providing a form to the applicant to take to the LMHP to fill out, sign and date.  I might take this route if I can find such a form.  So far I have not been able to locate one.

(3) Have an animal policy in your lease that covers all animals, pets and otherwise.  Tenant is liable for animal damages, must pick up after dog poops, clean out their kitty litter box regularly, obey leash laws, etc etc etc...

(4) Have your lease amended saying if a tenant is prescribed a ESA during their lease they must first clear it with you and provide documentation and allow you to verify, failure to obtain written permission from landlord prior to introducing an ESA is a lease violation.

(5) Also clarify that if an accommodation is a no pet accommodation, an verified and documented ESA requires the landlord to waive the no pet clause, only for that specific ESA.  In other words, having an ESA does not mean the pet is now allowed, that they cannot bring in additional animals, and their spouse and children can bring in new pets.  The no pet clause is waived for that specific animal.

(6) Some states are introducing new laws to make it harder to obtain bogus online certification.  For example in Florida there is a bill being considered to require the ESA certification to be provided by a doctor who's relationship to the individual seeking certification cannot be exclusively about providing ESA certification for a fee.  In other words, the certification would then have to be from their regular doctor not one one time online service to give you a certificate for $49.95.  This will make it much harder hopefully for the fakers.  I am considering amending my lease to require applicants who have ESAs to sign that their if and when the bill is passed to require their ESAs to be re-certified in accordance to the new laws within 30 days or it's a lease violation.  If your state does not have new laws addressing this I suggest you lobby your senator to make the certification harder and have some real penalty for those who misrepresent.