`No Pet' Rules are Hard to Enforce
by Dan Perry, The Ledger, Lakeland, Florida, January 1, 2005
Readers frequently ask why mobile
home park owners do not enforce the
"no-pet" restrictions of the park's written rules and regulations.
Many parks have restrictions on the height, weight or type of dogs and
other pets. These rules are also widely unenforced.
Park owners are justifiably cautious about aggressively enforcing a
"no-pet" restriction. They have learned that there are few things that
agitate home owners more than eliminating or restricting pets.
Park owners are also aware that an increasing number of doctors and
home owners are realizing the value of pets in reducing depression,
boredom and feelings of isolation.
Some home owners are confused about service animals. Service animals
traditionally perform physical tasks such as picking up keys, turning
off light switches, guiding a blind person, etc. Increasingly, the
lines between service animals and animals that provide emotional
support are blurring.
Florida courts and government agencies see a growing number of
complaints about property owners restricting pets. The Florida
Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) (http://fchr.state.fl.us/)
investigates complaints under the Florida Fair Housing Act and the
Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Chapter 760).
The FCHR website mentions two recent cases settled without court
action. In FCHR and Nellie Mosse versus VIP North Owners Association,
Inc., a condominium association that had a "no pet" rule. A disabled
condominium unit owner wanted an "emotional support dog" to reside in
her condominium. A settlement was reached with the Association in
which they allowed her to keep an "emotional support dog" under
certain conditions made acceptable to her. Those conditions require
the dog to weigh less than 25 pounds; be on a leash when in common
areas and not create excessive noise or be a nuisance. Lastly, the
unit owner must provide an annual certification from her doctor as to
the necessity for the dog.
In Va'Shem v. Players Club Apartments, a legally blind home owner
claimed her apartment manager made derogatory comments when she told
him that she would be getting a seeingeye dog. After FCHR investigated
the claim, the apartment manager agreed to pay a monetary settlement
to the home owner. Also, the manager and his staff attended fair
housing training.
In a November 2004 New Jersey case, the appellate court summarized the
various case-bycase factors a court must examine. "Whether a pet is of
sufficient assistance to a tenant to require a landlord to relax its
pet policy so as to reasonably accommodate the tenant's disability
requires a fact-sensitive examination ... The home owner must prove
that the requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling ..."
The court determined factors bearing on these questions to include:
(1) the extent the home owner's ability to function is facilitated by
the accommodation; (2) the training the animal received; and (3) the
landlord's existing policy of permitting certain tenants to have dogs,
so long as they are under a specific weight.
In the future readers can expect to hear more about the widening of
the concept of service animals to include those which provide
emotional support.
In a future column we will discuss the possible liability of a park
owner for negligently allowing an animal with a demonstrated history
of aggressive behavior to remain in the park.
Daniel W. Perry is a former county judge. His practice centers around
the representation of mobile homeowner associations, residential
cooperatives and subdivisions. Questions or comments can be sent to
The Ledger, P.O. Box 408, Lakeland, 33802 or faxed to 407-894-1437.
Some questions may be answered in the column. He also can be reached
at dan@danielperry.com or at his new
website www.danielperry.com.