• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Against law to advertise "no pets?""

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Pacer41

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

OHIO

My sister and brother in-law own a rental property and put ad in paper to rent it out. The add stated, "no pets." Someone posing as an interested tenant phoned and asked my brother-in-law if he would rent to someone with a "service" dog. He asked if the "service" dog still pooped and scratched like other dogs. He asked if they were talking about a seeing eye dog, and the party responded no, that this was a different type of dog for a different type of disability. He stated he would prefer not to rent to anyone with animals; which is why the ad read "no pets."

They received some sort of finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with a $3000 penalty attached for violating some type of Fair Housing Law which they clearly weren't familiar with! The call was made by someone from the agency so they feel that first of all, this is entrapment. Some people think it could be a scam. Is It?:confused:
 


Just Blue

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

OHIO

My sister and brother in-law own a rental property and put ad in paper to rent it out. The add stated, "no pets." Someone posing as an interested tenant phoned and asked my brother-in-law if he would rent to someone with a "service" dog. He asked if the "service" dog still pooped and scratched like other dogs. He asked if they were talking about a seeing eye dog, and the party responded no, that this was a different type of dog for a different type of disability. He stated he would prefer not to rent to anyone with animals; which is why the ad read "no pets."

They received some sort of finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with a $3000 penalty attached for violating some type of Fair Housing Law which they clearly weren't familiar with! The call was made by someone from the agency so they feel that first of all, this is entrapment. Some people think it could be a scam. Is It?:confused:
If your sister and BIL want to ask a question here, please have them join. You should not post their legal issues on the net.:)
 
Last edited:

HomeGuru

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

OHIO

My sister and brother in-law own a rental property and put ad in paper to rent it out. The add stated, "no pets." Someone posing as an interested tenant phoned and asked my brother-in-law if he would rent to someone with a "service" dog. He asked if the "service" dog still pooped and scratched like other dogs. He asked if they were talking about a seeing eye dog, and the party responded no, that this was a different type of dog for a different type of disability. He stated he would prefer not to rent to anyone with animals; which is why the ad read "no pets."

They received some sort of finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with a $3000 penalty attached for violating some type of Fair Housing Law which they clearly weren't familiar with! The call was made by someone from the agency so they feel that first of all, this is entrapment. Some people think it could be a scam. Is It?:confused:
**A: no it is not a scam. They should read the law and educate themselves.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
This was not entrapment; this is precisely how such investigations are conducted and it is quite legal. If your sister and brother in law are not familar with the aspects of the law relating to service animals, or any other aspect of the housing laws for that matter, they've got no business managing rental property in the first place.
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

OHIO

My sister and brother in-law own a rental property and put ad in paper to rent it out. The add stated, "no pets." Someone posing as an interested tenant phoned and asked my brother-in-law if he would rent to someone with a "service" dog. He asked if the "service" dog still pooped and scratched like other dogs. He asked if they were talking about a seeing eye dog, and the party responded no, that this was a different type of dog for a different type of disability. He stated he would prefer not to rent to anyone with animals; which is why the ad read "no pets."

They received some sort of finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with a $3000 penalty attached for violating some type of Fair Housing Law which they clearly weren't familiar with! The call was made by someone from the agency so they feel that first of all, this is entrapment. Some people think it could be a scam. Is It?:confused:
Pets are companion animals. Service animals are NOT. They serve an entirely different purpose, and are supported by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As long as the person can document the medical necessity for the animal, under the law they are not considered pets for the purpose of rental properties. And if a LL refuses to rent to someone who has such an animal that is properly documented, then it is considered discrimination and the LL can be cited and fined for the violation of law (which is exactly what happened here).

I suggest that your if your sister and BIL are going to continue being LLs, that they familiarize themselves with such matters, or they will find themselves with additional violations or maybe even a lawsuit against them in the future. It's their business to know such things, and their ignorance is not and will not be a legitimate excuse the next time.
 

Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
Pets are companion animals. Service animals are NOT. They serve an entirely different purpose, and are supported by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As long as the person can document the medical necessity for the animal, under the law they are not considered pets for the purpose of rental properties. And if a LL refuses to rent to someone who has such an animal that is properly documented, then it is considered discrimination and the LL can be cited and fined for the violation of law (which is exactly what happened here).

I suggest that your if your sister and BIL are going to continue being LLs, that they familiarize themselves with such matters, or they will find themselves with additional violations or maybe even a lawsuit against them in the future. It's their business to know such things, and their ignorance is not and will not be a legitimate excuse the next time.
ADA covers service animals, not emotional support/companion animals. Appropriate act is the Fair Housing Act.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
However, since the OP referenced service animals, it doesn't really matter whether companion animals are covered or not.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Anyone who does not know and understand the Fair Housing Act, along with all the other applicable landlord/tenant laws in their state, has absolutely NO business being a landlord. This couple either needs to get educated, or get out of the business.
 
The LL in this case just stated that he would prefer not to rent to people with animals. I don't see this as a violation. If the person with the service animal goes and looks and then wants to sign a lease THEN this could be an issue.

Service animals can help people with MS & other people maintain a better level of enjoyment.

One cannot demand that a LL be enthusiastic about renting to a person with a dog. The LL just said he would PREFER not to; it is not a denial.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The LL in this case just stated that he would prefer not to rent to people with animals. I don't see this as a violation. If the person with the service animal goes and looks and then wants to sign a lease THEN this could be an issue.
Wrong of course.

Service animals can help people with MS & other people maintain a better level of enjoyment.

One cannot demand that a LL be enthusiastic about renting to a person with a dog. The LL just said he would PREFER not to; it is not a denial.
Applicant inquired if they could have a service animal. LL said "I would prefer not." Yeah, that's denying the request :rolleyes:
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Stating a preference is not saying no. I prefer lager, but I'll drink an ale if that is all that's available.

Wouldn't the law only be broken if the potential applicant filled out an application and was then denied because of the service animal?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top