No one will allow our large family to rent!

[AngelBee]

It all depends upon where you live. In the midwest, people were not very open to large families renting. Here on the east coast, PA, people seem much more open to it and we have never been turned down over it (there are MANY large families here).

 

Live in MN :)

[Barb_]

Here, they only have to give you a reason for denial if the reason is credit related. Then they have to list which credit resource they used to base that denial upon.

 

Otherwise, no they don't have to ever call you back, much less explain why.

 

 

Martha, that doesn't sound right. I'm searching for the actual law, but according to this site:

 

If your application to rent an apartment is rejected, you have a right to know why. It is illegal for a landlord to refuse your rental application for discriminatory reasons. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of:

 

Race

Color

Religion

National origin

Sex

Age

Familial status (including not allowing children, discrimination against pregnant women)

Physical disability

Mental disability (including alcoholism and past drug addiction)

 

Other sites intended for landlords reinforce the need to properly contact the prospective tenant in writing if they will be turned down in order to avoid a lawsuit.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unrelated to the above, I just found out that an Evanston law prohibits 3 unrelated persons from sharing an apartment. So in essence, 3 and 4br apartments would have to go to families with children. That really doesn't help the OP, but I'm wondering who is renting these 4 bedroom duplexes unless it's a family with a good number of children :confused:

Edited May 8, 2012 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[Barb_]

Okay Brandie (and Martha), I found the federal law. It falls under the fair credit reporting act: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus49-using-consumer-reports-what-landlords-need-know

 

The landlord does have to give you a written notice if something in your credit report causes a landlord to avoid renting to you. Also, Martha is right that occupancy policies can prevent you from obtaining an apartment. So here is what I think I would do:

 

Chicago's occupancy code only refers to overall square footage and not bedrooms: http://www.tenants-rights.org/chicago-space-occupancy-requirements/ I would ask up front if there is an maximum occupancy policy. Some buildings have them and others don't. If the building doesn't have one, takes your money, and then proceeds to refuse to return your calls or give you valid reason for your rejection, I think you have a good case for an attorney.

[TranquilMind]

This is normal and typical. At MOST they will accept 2 ppl per bedroom. And most assume there will be one kid in each bedroom.

 

Laws might be different there, but it's not illegal here. The landlord can refuse to rent to you for lots of reasons, including the opinion that it would be too many occupants.

 

My only suggestion would be to get an inside to help. A friend of the landlord recommending you can go a long way.

Agree with Martha. 2 per bedroom is standard government recommendation and landlords have to follow Housing laws.

 

You might have better luck with a small time landlord like me with just a few houses. I bought one house from a family with four boys, who all chose to sleep in a single room, who were the best behaved children I have ever seen in my life. I told that woman I wanted to follow her around all day and see what she was doing.

 

It is true that most landlords will ask up front. If you don't have pets, that is a plus, so that might work in your favor.

[BlsdMama]

We had a hard time finding a rental this last time... The time before that the door just opened W-I-D-E.

 

For us, it was the combination of nine kiddos and the dog. The dog came about an inch away from a new home... Not that I don't love him, but between the dog and having nine kids homeless... Well, we would have gotten rid of the dog. We are very grateful it worked out that we didn't have to make that choice but we only had a couple days to spare out of a sixty day notice! It was close.

 

You have my sympathies. It is REALLY a difficult spot.

[TranquilMind]

Alte Veste Academy:

On top of it being a competitive rental market, we have a cat. Landlords apparently despise cats and about 2/3 of the houses we were considering were immediately ruled out because of her. Even the landlord at the house I am sitting at right now didn't want to take our cat but the only other offer at the time came from someone caught in a lie regarding credit. Lucky us! Still, we lost our favorite house because our application went in at the same time as a catless family (per our realtor).

 

 

I'm sorry you had this difficulty. As a landlord, I will say that having cats is a major problem for landlords. There is nothing on the planet that is more difficult to remove than the odor of cat urine. I didn't know this 11 years ago when I bought my first house, and I (stupidly) bought it from a cat owner. I had to actually tear out portions of the structure, and resurface every single surface to try to remove the cat urine that all cats leave, no matter how careful the owner is. On a hot summer day, you can STILL smell cat - after 11 YEARS - in one small bathroom!

 

Not to mention I'm allergic to cats. I spent a night wheezing once when a tenant had a cat visit.

 

So, being a cat owner is an automatic NO for me. I will say this, the absolute best answer I ever had from an applicant was this: "Pets? No, why would I have pets - I am a tenant! I will have a dog when I own my own home." Bingo...we have a winner. She stayed for years and bought a house right down the street from my house.

 

So, not having pets is a definite plus in the house-renting game from a landlord perspective.

[joannqn]

I agree with those that are recommending trying a property management company.

 

We had no problems finding a three bedroom rental with four kids, three cats, and a dog. They didn't even charge us the full pet deposit. Then when the owner decided to fire them and trying short-selling the house, the property management started sending us new rental options.

[Riverland]

Another issue for landlords ( I suppose depending on the state ) is that if you offer an exception to your rules to one tenant, you have to do it for all of them. Otherwise you could open yourself up to a discrimination suit.

 

So, if his rule is 2 people per bedroom and you convince him to allow 3 per bedroom, he then has to allow 3 people per bedroom for all prospective tenants.

[TranquilMind]

We sort of have that issue too. We have DH, I, 2 DDs, DS, 4 dogs and 2 cats. Its hard to find somewhere to rent!! REALLY HARD! We are all cramped in a 1bdrm right now because it was cheap. We found a different place, hopefully we can move next month, but the landlord said he was a bit leery because of all the dogs and people. Luckily hes a friend, so hes offering some wiggle, but otherwise, wed have an awful time!! :glare:

 

 

I just HAVE to ask, as a landlord, and I'm not picking on you at all, but merely trying to understand the mindset here.

 

If you are a tenant right now - which it appears you are - why do you have 4 dogs and 2 cats? As a landlord, that is an automatic no for me, and I know I'm not alone, so I am wondering why people have multiple (or any, really) pets when they are tenants? They are responsible for any damage the pet does, and it can get expensive if that cat urinates on the walls marking his territory, or that old dog just can't hold it anymore. You can end up paying for hardwood floor replacements or drywall and repainting.

 

So WHY do tenants have multiple pets? I'm curious, because being the practical person that I am, I would eliminate all completely voluntary causes of potential damage that might cost me money. Obviously, I'm keeping the kid or kids(!), but the pets just seem like an extravagance I can't afford as a tenant. So....if I'm not hijacking too much....I'd really like to know what people are thinking here. Do they not worry about pet damage? I know some landlords who take pets, but with really high deposits because they know that damage typically follows. It's true that some pets are less destructive than some kids - and I've taken 3 eight year old labs or boxers in 11 years - but generally, non-pet owning tenants are preferable so why do so many tenants have pets? Assuage my curiousity! :tongue_smilie:

[TranquilMind]

Getting rid of any of my dogs is not an option. The cats, well they are DHs. The dogs are family members here and not just dogs. They have been through quite a lot with me and I dont plan on them going anywhere. Id rather have a hard time finding a place and live in a place like we are currently in than give up my dogs. We have a roof over our heads and for that im thankful. We do have trouble finding places, we have managed so far in the 3yrs weve had the dogs.

 

So you'd rather not be able to find a place for the family and stay crammed in a one bedroom than to get rid of the four dogs so you can find a place for the family that suits you better?

 

I don't get it. Honestly.

[Murphy101]

Okay Brandie (and Martha), I found the federal law. It falls under the fair credit reporting act: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus49-using-consumer-reports-what-landlords-need-know

 

The landlord does have to give you a written notice if something in your credit report causes a landlord to avoid renting to you. Also, Martha is right that occupancy policies can prevent you from obtaining an apartment. So here is what I think I would do:

 

Chicago's occupancy code only refers to overall square footage and not bedrooms: http://www.tenants-rights.org/chicago-space-occupancy-requirements/ I would ask up front if there is an maximum occupancy policy. Some buildings have them and others don't. If the building doesn't have one, takes your money, and then proceeds to refuse to return your calls or give you valid reason for your rejection, I think you have a good case for an attorney.

 

Right, they have to notify you in writing IF it's related to your credit report. If it is not related to your credit report, they don't have to tell you anything other than NO.

 

I'd bet money that if asked what their occupancy policy is, they will state the 2 per bedroom average.

 

Which doesn't help the OP.

 

This is why we sold everything we owned and bought our first home when I was pregnant with #5. We were renting a nice 3 bedroom home for 7 years and even tho our landlord admitted we were good renters who always paid on time and left the home in far better condition than when we moved in - she didn't want to rent to any one that would have more than 2 people per bedroom. We looked for months and no one would rent to a family of 7. Even if it was a four bedroom. The house we bought was smaller than our rental and 40 minutes from dh's work, which made having only 1 car a PITA for me if I needed it, but the house was ours and our family could grow in it or own a pet without worry.

 

If you can't find a rental in your area and price range, then you might have to buy something far below desired goals and hope that in a few years you'll be in a better position to sell it and move to a better place.

 

:grouphug:

[TranquilMind]

You know, how exactly are they doing this? Once they have your application fee and have checked your credit, how are they getting out of renting to you? What is the excuse? Is there a small ding on your credit that allows them to worm out of it? Or do they just stop contacting you? I think I'd try to avoid telling them about the children until it's time to list occupants. How old are your kids?

 

Also, I think they are legally required to give you a reason, in writing, as to why you have been denied.

 

A landlord is only required to give a written denial if the reason is bad credit. Otherwise, no. Any non-discriminatory reason can be the basis for denial. If applicant A smokes and applicant B does not, you can rent to applicant B, preferring the nonsmoker. If applicant A has obnoxious kids who bang on the walls and pull out cabinet doors, and crawl inside during the showing and Mom does NOTHING, you can deny on the basis of behavior (not presence) of kids. If another applicant is just obnoxious, threatening, demands to paint the freshly painted house, states that he will not allow a credit check, or that he is a sexual offender...or any other non-discriminatory (under Fair Housing) sort of undesirable, you can reject that applicant.

 

The applicant cannot merely decide not to mention the kids until the application. All good landlords screen up front...How many people will be living in the unit(this includes kids - who are people!)...why are you moving....how many pets do you have...we require good credit and clean criminal history...will that be a problem? If the applicant doesn't pass this, we don't even get to the application. If the applicant leaves out relevant information that is then discovered, we can terminate immediately, even if we have signed the lease. We only want honest, straightforward applicants. Maybe our house isn't a match for everyone, but it is never a match for anyone deceitful.

 

You can choose the best applicant; you need not be restricted to the first applicant. You are required to let all interested applicants apply.

Edited May 8, 2012 by TranquilMind

[Murphy101]

So you'd rather not be able to find a place for the family and stay crammed in a one bedroom than to get rid of the four dogs so you can find a place for the family that suits you better?

 

I don't get it. Honestly.

 

Me either. Someone purposely choosing to have their children live in aslum lord tenement housing situation because they don't want to rehome their pets, which can't possibly be healthy living crammed like that either, is beyond my understanding.

 

If the difference between upgrading the living conditions for my children was the animals - we'd cry about it and do our best to get them good new homes.

[Barb_]

A landlord is only required to give a written denial if the reason is bad credit. Otherwise, no. Any non-discriminatory reason can be the basis for denial. If applicant A smokes and applicant B does not, you can rent to applicant A. If applicant A has obnoxious kids who bang on everything and pull out cabinet doors, and crawl inside during the showing and Mom does NOTHING, you can deny on the basis of behavior (not presence) of kids. If another applicant is just obnoxious, threatening, demands to paint the freshly painted house...or any other non-discriminatory sort of undesirable, you can reject that applicant.

 

The applicant cannot merely decide not to mention the kids until the application. All good landlords screen up front...How many people will be living in the unit...why are you moving....how many pets do you have...we require good credit and clean criminal history...will that be a problem? If the applicant doesn't pass this, we don't even get to the application. If the applicant leaves out relevant information that is then discovered, we can terminate immediately, even if we have signed the lease. We only want honest, straightforward applicants. Maybe our house isn't a match for everyone, but it is never a match for anyone deceitful.

 

You can choose the best applicant; you need not be restricted to the first applicant. You are required to let all interested applicants apply.

 

Then what stops a landlord from taking applications for an apartment that doesn't exist? Or that has already been rented? Or that exists but s/he has no intention of renting out? It would seem that a good landlord would provide application guidelines so the applicant would know ahead of time whether they fit the profile of an allowed renter. That is why I mentioned asking whether there is a maximum occupancy policy in effect ahead of time. Not mention children, specifically, but a written, easily accessed maximum occupancy policy. If there is, there is nothing to be done but move on. But if there isn't, rejecting an application on the basis of too many children is illegal.

 

I understand that all applicants should be allowed to apply. But if another is chosen, then the landlord should say so within a reasonable period of time. If the applicant is rejected without someone else being chosen, it would be a smart move for the prospective landlord to provide a valid reason or risk looking discriminatory. It wouldn't be a bad idea to put the landlord on the spot, in writing (say email). Ask, "When will I hear whether my application is accepted?" and "Will you respond with a reason if for some reason my application is rejected?" There is no reason the OP should be losing money all over town.

 

Why would it be deceitful to avoid mentioning children until the application process? As long as they are disclosed before the lease is signed, there is no attempt to deceive, only to level the playing field.

[Murphy101]

Then what stops a landlord from taking applications for an apartment that doesn't exist? Or that has already been rented? Or that exists but s/he has no intention of renting out?

 

:confused: What would keep a landlord from taking applications for an apartment that doesn't exist ir they never plan to rent out? A desire to not commit FRAUD?

 

Lots of landlords take applications for property already rented and even have a wait list of prospective renters.

 

rejecting an application on the basis of too many children is illegal.

 

No. It isn't. They can decide to change their policy any time they want. They could have a policy today that says cats are okay and tomorrow go home and decide they aren't happy with that and from now on the only leases they will accept are those without cats.

 

I understand that all applicants should be allowed to apply. But if another is chosen, then the landlord should say so within a reasonable period of time.

 

No he shouldn't. There might have been dozens of applicants. He has no reason to waste his time and money contacting people who were not selected. It'd be nice, but there is no business reason to do so.

 

If the applicant is rejected without someone else being chosen, it would be a smart move for the prospective landlord to provide a valid reason or risk looking discriminatory.

 

He doesn't have to give any valid reason at all. He just has to NOT give a legally discriminatory reason.

 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to put the landlord on the spot, in writing (say email). Ask, "When will I hear whether my application is accepted?" and "Will you respond with a reason if for some reason my application is rejected?" There is no reason the OP should be losing money all over town.

 

And all the landlord has to do is decide the applicant is a pain and not respond to their email or even just say they will contact them by such and such day only if they are approved and then not approve their lease. I can't say as how trying to put a landlord on the spot is going to help someone get a lease?:confused:

 

Why would it be deceitful to avoid mentioning children until the application process? As long as they are disclosed before the lease is signed, there is no attempt to deceive, only to level the playing field.

 

In many cases the application is the first step. In a market where things are moving fast, landlords can and do only show to preapproved applicants.

[TranquilMind]

Barb F. PA in AZ: Then what stops a landlord from taking applications for an apartment that doesn't exist?

 

I don't understand. Why would one submit an application on a nonexistent apartment? I only rent to people who come see the apartment, which is how they get the application...from me. I suppose you could be talking about those companies that want you to submit an app up front before seeing anything. Don't do business with them. Half of them are scammers anyway, on Craigslist.

 

 

Or that has already been rented?

 

Well, I suppose a crooked landlord could do this. But why bother? If it is rented, there is much work to do and most landlords don't continue to take money from people without having a unit for them.

 

 

Or that exists but s/he has no intention of renting out? It would seem that a good landlord would provide application guidelines so the applicant would know ahead of time whether they fit the profile of an allowed renter.

 

Well, I certainly tell them what we are looking for, preferably while they are viewing the apartment. One on one personal conversation. I always know almost immediately if this is my new tenant or not. By the time we get to the house-viewing stage, I already know enough about them that they are real contenders for the property. We've emailed plenty by then. I don't waste my time otherwise.

 

That is why I mentioned asking whether there is a maximum occupancy policy in effect ahead of time. Not mention children, specifically, but a written, easily accessed maximum occupancy policy. If there is, there is nothing to be done but move on. But if there isn't, rejecting an application on the basis of too many children is illegal.

 

 

Sure, anyone should ask. But no, it is not illegal to reject on too many PEOPLE. But yes, you cannot reject on the basis of the presence of children.

 

I understand that all applicants should be allowed to apply. But if another is chosen, then the landlord should say so within a reasonable period of time.

 

Absolutely. I tell them that they will hear back from me in 24-48 hours if they are selected. Sometimes it takes a day or two to get calls back from previous landlords and employers.

 

If the applicant is rejected without someone else being chosen, it would be a smart move for the prospective landlord to provide a valid reason or risk looking discriminatory.

 

I disagree. It is actually legally preferable to do only what is required, in other words, send the mandated letter if rejected for credit reasons. I never tell them in writing why they are rejected, but if they contact me, I will state that they did not meet our requirements but that I hope they find a great place. They know why...it is either credit, criminal history, employment (or lack thereof), or bad landlord references. If it was a pet or smoking, I told them up front we didn't do pets or smoking. It could be that someone else provided the full deposit and signed the Lease before them because they were dragging their feet or making demands of some kind, like asking if we'd install all new appliances when the other applicant was happy with the house as is.

 

 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to put the landlord on the spot, in writing (say email). Ask, "When will I hear whether my application is accepted?" and "Will you respond with a reason if for some reason my application is rejected?" There is no reason the OP should be losing money all over town.

 

 

That's true. There should be some time frame for acceptance and the OP should also find out the requirements before paying the application fee. If the OP knows up front that she won't meet the criteria for whatever reason, then don't apply there.

 

Why would it be deceitful to avoid mentioning children until the application process? As long as they are disclosed before the lease is signed, there is no attempt to deceive, only to level the playing field.

 

 

If I ask an applicant in the pre-screening phase when we are first talking or emailing how many people will be moving in with her and she says, "My husband and myself", then I have been told that two people will reside there. If she later tries to add a boatload of kids she neglected to mention, she has deliberately deceived me. Any lie is an auto-reject, no matter how small, and my application itself reiterates this.

 

I do not accept liars. If I find out that an address was not mentioned - which will show up on the credit report - because the tenant is trying to hide that landlord he didn't like, that's an auto-reject. If the tenant fails to mention that stint in jail, there's an auto-reject. If the tenant had multiple complaints from the neighbors and didn't bother to mention it, I will find out. Honesty is the best policy because we will always find out.

Edited May 8, 2012 by TranquilMind

[Barb_]

Martha, my point is, if a landlord isn't acting in good faith he is setting himself up as lawsuit bait. There may not be a legal reason to do so or a business reason to do so, but I think there is a deeper moral obligation and a little CYA involved.

 

Do you have any constructive advice for the OP or would you prefer just to stay glued to me and pick my posts apart?

[aggieamy]

Me either. Someone purposely choosing to have their children live in aslum lord tenement housing situation because they don't want to rehome their pets, which can't possibly be healthy living crammed like that either, is beyond my understanding.

 

If the difference between upgrading the living conditions for my children was the animals - we'd cry about it and do our best to get them good new homes.

 

I don't get it either but I'm one of those people that think that people are family members and pets are well ... animals. I wouldn't treat them poorly but I also would sacrifice safety/well being of my family for them.

[Barb_]

I don't understand. Why would one submit an application on a nonexistent apartment? I only rent to people who come see the apartment, which is how they get the application...from me. I suppose you could be talking about those companies that want you to submit an app up front before seeing anything. Don't do business with them. Half of them are scammers anyway, on Craigslist.

 

Scamming is rampant on both sides of the fence, which is why it's a good idea for a landlord to cover herself. You sound as if you do an admirable job. I was wondering whether the landlords the OP was attempting to deal with were as up front as you seem to be.

 

Well, I suppose a crooked landlord could do this. But why bother? If it is rented, there is much work to do and most landlords don't continue to take money from people without having a unit for them.

 

Who knows why anyone runs a scam with the intent to defraud people. There really should be a law that if you take money for an application fee (particularly if the money is far in excess of a reasonable fee for a credit report), you should be required to provide a reason for the rejection, even if that reason is, "We rented to another candidate."

 

Sure, anyone should ask. But no, it is not illegal to reject on too many PEOPLE. But yes, you cannot reject on the basis of the presence of children.

 

I agree. But as I understand it, the policy needs to be an established, written policy and applicable to all tenants.

 

If I ask an applicant in the pre-screening phase when we are first talking or emailing how many people will be moving in with her and she says, "My husband and myself", then I have been told that two people will reside there. If she later tries to add a boatload of kids she neglected to mention, she has deliberately deceived me. Any lie is an auto-reject, no matter how small, and my application itself reiterates this.

 

The OP wasn't talking about doing this; were you mentioning it in general terms? I hope the OP doesn't think you were accusing her of trying to do something like the above.

[Barb_]

I've called hundreds of landlord and no one will rent to a family of seven, not even four bedroom duplexes.

 

Just to refocus the attention on the original post, I'm mainly reacting to the above quote. How can a 4 br duplex reject a family on the basis of occupancy limits unless they are specifically excluding the number of children? Yes, I realize they can *say* they only rent to a maximum of four people, but they'd better be prepared to cough up a written policy to that effect when asked.

[TranquilMind]

Barb F. PA in AZ: There really should be a law that if you take money for an application fee (particularly if the money is far in excess of a reasonable fee for a credit report), you should be required to provide a reason for the rejection, even if that reason is, "We rented to another candidate."

 

 

The applicant has the ability to not pay a huge fee for the application and should take his business elsewhere. I only charge enough to cover credit reports, and sometimes not even that, as in the past, I had to pay a higher amount for credit reports.

 

 

I agree. But as I understand it, the policy needs to be an established, written policy and applicable to all tenants.

 

All landlords should have established policies.

 

 

The OP wasn't talking about doing this; were you mentioning it in general terms? I hope the OP doesn't think you were accusing her of trying to do something like the above.

 

 

No, not at all! I was just speaking generally, since more general issues were posed. Thanks for pointing that out!

[TranquilMind]

Just to refocus the attention on the original post, I'm mainly reacting to the above quote. How can a 4 br duplex reject a family on the basis of occupancy limits unless they are specifically excluding the number of children? Yes, I realize they can *say* they only rent to a maximum of four people, but they'd better be prepared to cough up a written policy to that effect when asked.

 

You are correct in that 4 bedrooms can handle 8 people (plus one). So no, this can't be the reason for this. Who knows? It could be any number of things. Were there pets? (I don't remember now!) Smokers? Insufficient income for the rental amount? Credit issue? Timing won't work, meaning landlord wants to rent now and applicant can't move for 2 months or something? There could be a myriad of issues involved which we can't know unless we are privy to the conversation, so I mention some of the usual suspects above.

[Murphy101]

Martha, my point is, if a landlord isn't acting in good faith he is setting himself up as lawsuit bait. There may not be a legal reason to do so or a business reason to do so, but I think there is a deeper moral obligation and a little CYA involved.

 

Do you have any constructive advice for the OP or would you prefer just to stay glued to me and pick my posts apart?

 

Good grief. I'm not picking on you, I'm pointing out that your information is flat out wrong. Giving the OP wrong info isn't going to help her either?:confused:

 

There is no moral obligation or a CYA need to contact people and explain why they were turned down or even that they were turned down. Good grief, a landlord could have dozens of applications s/he turned down. And as I already said, even if the landlord did say he didn't want to rent to large family, he CAN say that. That is not illegal. So what would be the point of that contact?

 

Yes, I did have constructive advice. At least twice.

 

I said to try getting a reference to large family friendly landlord. (btw OP, try giving Catholic Charities a call and explain your situation. You don't have to be catholic and maybe they know of someone looking for a good renter.)

 

I suggested that maybe she can buy a home, but what she can afford would be way below the living standard she would prefer. Iow, it might be a gosh awful fixer upper in the seedy part of town, but it's a roof and maybe in a few years they will be better off and able to upgrade.

 

Several people suggested she avoid going through agencies bc they tend to be stricter for many reasons.

 

OP I would also put the word out to every single person you and your dh know, however slight. You never know where an opportunity might arise. Family, friends, coworkers, current neighbors, the mailman. Best of luck to you and yours. I know it's hard. When dh was layed off we were terribly worried about what would we do if we lost our home bc we know almost no one rents to a couple with 6+ kids. And we knew it was rare even before the recession.:grouphug:

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'm sorry you had this difficulty. As a landlord, I will say that having cats is a major problem for landlords. There is nothing on the planet that is more difficult to remove than the odor of cat urine. I didn't know this 11 years ago when I bought my first house, and I (stupidly) bought it from a cat owner. I had to actually tear out portions of the structure, and resurface every single surface to try to remove the cat urine that all cats leave, no matter how careful the owner is. On a hot summer day, you can STILL smell cat - after 11 YEARS - in one small bathroom!

 

Not to mention I'm allergic to cats. I spent a night wheezing once when a tenant had a cat visit.

 

So, being a cat owner is an automatic NO for me. I will say this, the absolute best answer I ever had from an applicant was this: "Pets? No, why would I have pets - I am a tenant! I will have a dog when I own my own home." Bingo...we have a winner. She stayed for years and bought a house right down the street from my house.

 

So, not having pets is a definite plus in the house-renting game from a landlord perspective.

 

I just HAVE to ask, as a landlord, and I'm not picking on you at all, but merely trying to understand the mindset here.

 

If you are a tenant right now - which it appears you are - why do you have 4 dogs and 2 cats? As a landlord, that is an automatic no for me, and I know I'm not alone, so I am wondering why people have multiple (or any, really) pets when they are tenants? They are responsible for any damage the pet does, and it can get expensive if that cat urinates on the walls marking his territory, or that old dog just can't hold it anymore. You can end up paying for hardwood floor replacements or drywall and repainting.

 

So WHY do tenants have multiple pets? I'm curious, because being the practical person that I am, I would eliminate all completely voluntary causes of potential damage that might cost me money. Obviously, I'm keeping the kid or kids(!), but the pets just seem like an extravagance I can't afford as a tenant. So....if I'm not hijacking too much....I'd really like to know what people are thinking here. Do they not worry about pet damage? I know some landlords who take pets, but with really high deposits because they know that damage typically follows. It's true that some pets are less destructive than some kids - and I've taken 3 eight year old labs or boxers in 11 years - but generally, non-pet owning tenants are preferable so why do so many tenants have pets? Assuage my curiousity! :tongue_smilie:

 

"Tenants" (aka humans ;)) have pets because humans receive comfort and companionship from pets. No, it is not convenient to rent with pets. You do not have to rent to someone with pets, so no skin off your nose. :)

 

We will soon be landlords also and we will allow pets, even cats. We will require a deposit, of course, and perhaps a letter from the previous landlord. I feel that pet ownership is one of the richest experiences a person can have and I don't think that families (and, specifically, children) who don't own a home should automatically be denied that. I grew up in Army housing, moving every 2-3 years. I can't imagine having grown up without pets.

 

Will we get burned at some point? Probably. But my conscience won't let me deny renters what is so important to me.

[Jpoy85]

I just HAVE to ask, as a landlord, and I'm not picking on you at all, but merely trying to understand the mindset here.

 

If you are a tenant right now - which it appears you are - why do you have 4 dogs and 2 cats? As a landlord, that is an automatic no for me, and I know I'm not alone, so I am wondering why people have multiple (or any, really) pets when they are tenants? They are responsible for any damage the pet does, and it can get expensive if that cat urinates on the walls marking his territory, or that old dog just can't hold it anymore. You can end up paying for hardwood floor replacements or drywall and repainting.

 

So WHY do tenants have multiple pets? I'm curious, because being the practical person that I am, I would eliminate all completely voluntary causes of potential damage that might cost me money. Obviously, I'm keeping the kid or kids(!), but the pets just seem like an extravagance I can't afford as a tenant. So....if I'm not hijacking too much....I'd really like to know what people are thinking here. Do they not worry about pet damage? I know some landlords who take pets, but with really high deposits because they know that damage typically follows. It's true that some pets are less destructive than some kids - and I've taken 3 eight year old labs or boxers in 11 years - but generally, non-pet owning tenants are preferable so why do so many tenants have pets? Assuage my curiousity! :tongue_smilie:

 

We have pets because we want them. I dont know how to answer your question other than that. We havent had any damage to any apartments or the house we rented so far. We have had our security deposit returned from all places. All of my animals are spayed/neutered (except the 1 dog and he needs to be). All of my pets are cleaned up after because I care about my pets and where i live.

 

ETA: Repainting is considered wear and tear if youve lived someplace 1yr+, at least where i am anyway. Same with carpet cleaning.

 

So you'd rather not be able to find a place for the family and stay crammed in a one bedroom than to get rid of the four dogs so you can find a place for the family that suits you better?

 

I don't get it. Honestly.

 

We are able to find a place, I have been able to for the last 3yrs weve had the dogs/cats. Its harder, thats all.

[TranquilMind]

Alte Veste Academy No, it is not convenient to rent with pets. You do not have to rent to someone with pets, so no skin off your nose. :)

 

True, I don't, but it is because I learned from someone else's extraordinarily expensive mistake. The German Shepherd, left inside all the time and not enjoying it, tore all the drywall and wood trim off the living room. Guess who got to pay for all the repair - yep, that one is on the tenant.

 

We will soon be landlords also and we will allow pets, even cats. We will require a deposit, of course, and perhaps a letter from the previous landlord. I feel that pet ownership is one of the richest experiences a person can have and I don't think that families (and, specifically, children) who don't own a home should automatically be denied that. I grew up in Army housing, moving every 2-3 years. I can't imagine having grown up without pets.

 

Will we get burned at some point?

Well, I hope you never are burned. But if you are, and it's 10 grand out of your pocket to repair an area of the home, you will quickly stop allowing pets.

 

And you are mistaken about repainting being necessary every year, and that being ordinary wear and tear. It most certainly is NOT ordinary wear and tear. I don't repaint my own home for decades, often. If the tenant has done so much damage to the interior that the house must be repainted within a year, that's on the tenant.

 

And besides, I wasn't just talking about ordinary repainting, which should never be necessary more than every few years, at most. I was talking about when an animal, like a spraying cat, damages the drywall with urine, which must all be removed and replaced, along with any baseboards and then primed and painted, sometimes along with the flooring as well, if sealing won't work. That's damage, not ordinary wear and tear and the tenant is responsible for 100% of all dirt and damage he or his pets or kids cause and will be billed.

 

It hasn't happened to me and I plan to keep it that way. It is just not worth the risk.

 

Another problem with pets is access when the plumber or the HVAC guy comes for routine maintenance. No pets, no problem. I just notify the tenant and go right in. Pets... big problem, usually, and the tenant has to leave work to come home, if it isn't crated. Not my problem, because I don't allow it.

[TranquilMind]

Jpoy85: ETA: Repainting is considered wear and tear if youve lived someplace 1yr+, at least where i am anyway. Same with carpet cleaning.

 

This is inaccurate. Though I do have the carpets cleaned professionally between tenants always, as a cost of doing business, any dirt or damage that the tenant causes is entirely on his own dime. No landlord should have to repaint a place in a year or even 5 years. A paint job should last many years unless a tenant damages it. Mine don't and since they don't have pets, neither do their pets.

 

I've always wondered why I can have a good paint job for 20 years and never have to clean my white carpet (we don't wear shoes inside), except for an occasional spot cleaning, even with children, but tenants can make the place really dirty and trash a carpet in just a few years. Most of mine have been pretty good, but it never looks like it does - with a couple of notable exceptions - when I move out of a place.

 

We are able to find a place, I have been able to for the last 3yrs weve had the dogs/cats. Its harder, thats all.

 

Well, I'm glad your able to do so, though voluntarily making it more difficult on yourself when you know you are going to remain a tenant for awhile just doesn't seem to be logical to me, but each to his own. I like to make things easy on myself and on the other party dealing with me.

[Alte Veste Academy]

True, I don't, but it is because I learned from someone else's extraordinarily expensive mistake. The German Shepherd, left inside all the time and not enjoying it, tore all the drywall and wood trim off the living room. Guess who got to pay for all the repair - yep, that one is on the tenant.

 

Well, I hope you never are burned. But if you are, and it's 10 grand out of your pocket to repair an area of the home, you will quickly stop allowing pets.

 

I find your statement condescending, to say the least. It comes off as very presumptuous and haughty to speak as if you could possibly be certain of anyone else's decisions but your own.

 

Not that I feel the need to defend my decision to you but I am no dope who plans to rent out my home with my fingers crossed and hope in my heart. :001_rolleyes: There are ways of helping to lower the risk of pet damage (letters of recommendation from previous landlords, provisional acceptance of pets with frequent checks on the property, shorter lease periods to allow an out for more minor problems, etc.).

 

And you are mistaken about repainting being necessary every year, and that being ordinary wear and tear. It most certainly is NOT ordinary wear and tear. I don't repaint my own home for decades, often. If the tenant has done so much damage to the interior that the house must be repainted within a year, that's on the tenant.

 

And besides, I wasn't just talking about ordinary repainting, which should never be necessary more than every few years, at most. I was talking about when an animal, like a spraying cat, damages the drywall with urine, which must all be removed and replaced, along with any baseboards and then primed and painted, sometimes along with the flooring as well, if sealing won't work. That's damage, not ordinary wear and tear and the tenant is responsible for 100% of all dirt and damage he or his pets or kids cause and will be billed.

 

It hasn't happened to me and I plan to keep it that way. It is just not worth the risk.

 

You have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about painting, wear and tear, etc.

 

Another problem with pets is access when the plumber or the HVAC guy comes for routine maintenance. No pets, no problem. I just notify the tenant and go right in. Pets... big problem, usually, and the tenant has to leave work to come home, if it isn't crated. Not my problem, because I don't allow it.

 

:confused: I really don't need an education about the problems of renting to people with pets. I am well aware of what it is like to live with and rent with pets.

 

You don't need to defend your case. Your home is your responsibility and you may do with it what you wish, of course. And, honestly, I would love to end this conversation now, especially since the OP didn't even bring up pets at all. Now I regret doing so, as it has sidetracked the thread when I meant it simply to commiserate and to add to the discussion of the current rental market.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[TranquilMind]

Alte Veste Academy: I find your statement condescending, to say the least. It comes off as very presumptuous and haughty to speak as if you could possibly be certain of anyone else's decisions but your own.

 

Not that I feel the need to defend my decision to you but I am no dope who plans to rent out my home with my fingers crossed and hope in my heart. :001_rolleyes: There are ways of helping to lower the risk of pet damage (letters of recommendation from previous landlords, provisional acceptance of pets with frequent checks on the property, shorter lease periods to allow an out for more minor problems, etc.).

 

 

My apologies. I've been in this gig for 11 years and am connected to a large group of landlords, so I was merely relating their experiences, which, fortunately, have not become my own. I hope they are never yours either. You do seem to have a rosy view of pets as a homeowner,and that's fine, but that is not at all the same thing as the perspective of a landlord.

 

Letters of recommendation can easily be forged. You will want to directly speak with a previous (not only the current) landlord and verify that he actually owns the property. Sometimes tenants lie and list friends as their landlords, who will give glowing recommendations, so you need to know how to verify that they are actual landlords.

 

 

You have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about painting, wear and tear, etc.

 

 

Sorry, I did. It was the post right after, I believe, to which I responded. I read both and then responded and mixed that statement in. Sorry!

 

 

I really don't need an education about the problems of renting to people with pets. I am well aware of what it is like to live with and rent with pets.

You have landlord experience? Then I will go away now. Or only tenant experience. I'm speaking from both sides, having done both. If you are an experienced landlord, please disregard my comments, but perhaps someone else will benefit from them, that's all.

 

 

You don't need to defend your case. Your home is your responsibility and you may do with it what you wish, of course. And, honestly, I would love to end this conversation now, especially since the OP didn't even bring up pets at all. Now I regret doing so, as it has sidetracked the thread when I meant it simply to commiserate and to add to the discussion of the current rental market.

 

 

Enough said. This is what we do here, respond to the comments of others with our own experiences, and often the threads take turns, so I just followed this one, since I have experience in this particular area. It was not intended to offend you personally. I apologize.

Edited May 9, 2012 by TranquilMind

[Alte Veste Academy]

Enough said. This is what we do here, respond to the comments of others with our own experiences, and often the threads take turns, so I just followed this one, since I have experience in this particular area. It was not intended to offend you personally. I apologize.

 

No harm done. I just didn't want us to become two people belaboring our own firmly held positions. Nothing good ever comes of that in a thread... :lol:

[Jpoy85]

This is inaccurate. Though I do have the carpets cleaned professionally between tenants always, as a cost of doing business, any dirt or damage that the tenant causes is entirely on his own dime. No landlord should have to repaint a place in a year or even 5 years. A paint job should last many years unless a tenant damages it. Mine don't and since they don't have pets, neither do their pets.

 

I've always wondered why I can have a good paint job for 20 years and never have to clean my white carpet (we don't wear shoes inside), except for an occasional spot cleaning, even with children, but tenants can make the place really dirty and trash a carpet in just a few years. Most of mine have been pretty good, but it never looks like it does - with a couple of notable exceptions - when I move out of a place.

 

 

 

Well, I'm glad your able to do so, though voluntarily making it more difficult on yourself when you know you are going to remain a tenant for awhile just doesn't seem to be logical to me, but each to his own. I like to make things easy on myself and on the other party dealing with me.

 

ok well HERE the rules are different than where you are.

[Amy in NH]

No landlord should have to repaint a place in a year or even 5 years. A paint job should last many years unless a tenant damages it.

 

I think this is incorrect. Walls get dinged and dirty over time. I've never heard of a house not needing at least touch up work within a year or two, and definitely not for 20. I'm pretty sure most states consider repainting to be needed as a part of maintenance due to normal wear and tear if it has been two years or more since the property was last painted. That should be covered by the landlord, and not charged to the tenant.

 

What state are you in, TranquilMind?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Amy in NH

[TranquilMind]

I'm pretty sure most states consider repainting to be needed as a part of maintenance due to normal wear and tear if it has been two years or more since the property was last painted. That should be covered by the landlord, and not charged to the tenant.

 

 

This is a common tenant urban legend. Unless something has changed recently (please cite the statute or regulation because I can't find one), there is NO law in the country that requires landlords to paint every two years, or even between tenants.

 

Painting is done on an as-needed basis. Because I'm a good landlord who wishes to obtain and retain the cream of the crop tenants, I do repaint between tenants - never while a tenant is in residence - because I want my houses to look fantastic compared to the competition, not because I am required to do so by law.

 

Touch up occurs, of course, because we want the house to look good, but under no circumstances should any paint job be trashed in a couple of years by a tenant, or even five years. The tenant can use a Magic Eraser to remove most of those smudge marks that end up on the walls that the tenant/family caused. It certainly was not turned over to them in that condition and I have the pictures to prove it on the day of possession. If you do not like the condition of the house when you view it, do not rent the property.

 

That said, I'm very lax on this and expect to have to touch up and paint to keep it to my standards. The only time anyone got charged was the lady who put 500 holes in the living room alone.

 

A landlord is only required to maintain the premises in a habitable condition and do repairs up to code. That's it.

 

Those of us who want the better tenants do more, but that is a business decision, not a legal mandate.

[TranquilMind]

ok well HERE the rules are different than where you are.

They are simply good business, so good landlords professionally clean the carpets and repaint some walls but no state law requires this for landlords who are renting to free market tenants. There are some special regulations applicable to Section 8 housing, but only those landlords who choose to deal with that bureaucracy are mandated to follow those.

[Murphy101]

This is a common tenant urban legend. Unless something has changed recently (please cite the statute or regulation because I can't find one), there is NO law in the country that requires landlords to paint every two years, or even between tenants.

 

Painting is done on an as-needed basis. Because I'm a good landlord who wishes to obtain and retain the cream of the crop tenants, I do repaint between tenants - never while a tenant is in residence - because I want my houses to look fantastic compared to the competition, not because I am required to do so by law.

 

Touch up occurs, of course, because we want the house to look good, but under no circumstances should any paint job be trashed in a couple of years by a tenant, or even five years. The tenant can use a Magic Eraser to remove most of those smudge marks that end up on the walls that the tenant/family caused. It certainly was not turned over to them in that condition and I have the pictures to prove it on the day of possession. If you do not like the condition of the house when you view it, do not rent the property.

 

That said, I'm very lax on this and expect to have to touch up and paint to keep it to my standards. The only time anyone got charged was the lady who put 500 holes in the living room alone.

 

A landlord is only required to maintain the premises in a habitable condition and do repairs up to code. That's it.

 

Those of us who want the better tenants do more, but that is a business decision, not a legal mandate.

 

 

:iagree: the ONLY time we ever had to repaint was because of crappy flat paint. (I HATE FLAT PAINT!!) I swear that paint attacts dirt and you can't clean it without just making it worse looking.

 

Semi gloss latex paint all the way in this house. I can scrub the heck out of it if necessary and it doesn't ding/chip much at all.

 

As a side note, magic eraser markers made my kitchen walls look like I'd just painted them and they haven't been painted in over 7 years!!!! It doesn't work for flat paint tho. Still 2 erasers and 2 kids and about 30 minutes to have a fresh looking kitchen?!! I am one happy woman!:D

[lovemy9kids]

I just HAVE to ask, as a landlord, and I'm not picking on you at all, but merely trying to understand the mindset here.

 

If you are a tenant right now - which it appears you are - why do you have 4 dogs and 2 cats? As a landlord, that is an automatic no for me, and I know I'm not alone, so I am wondering why people have multiple (or any, really) pets when they are tenants? They are responsible for any damage the pet does, and it can get expensive if that cat urinates on the walls marking his territory, or that old dog just can't hold it anymore. You can end up paying for hardwood floor replacements or drywall and repainting.

 

So WHY do tenants have multiple pets? I'm curious, because being the practical person that I am, I would eliminate all completely voluntary causes of potential damage that might cost me money. Obviously, I'm keeping the kid or kids(!), but the pets just seem like an extravagance I can't afford as a tenant. So....if I'm not hijacking too much....I'd really like to know what people are thinking here. Do they not worry about pet damage? I know some landlords who take pets, but with really high deposits because they know that damage typically follows. It's true that some pets are less destructive than some kids - and I've taken 3 eight year old labs or boxers in 11 years - but generally, non-pet owning tenants are preferable so why do so many tenants have pets? Assuage my curiousity! :tongue_smilie:

 

 

This

[lovemy9kids]

So you'd rather not be able to find a place for the family and stay crammed in a one bedroom than to get rid of the four dogs so you can find a place for the family that suits you better?

 

I don't get it. Honestly.

 

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

I just HAVE to ask, as a landlord, and I'm not picking on you at all, but merely trying to understand the mindset here.

 

If you are a tenant right now - which it appears you are - why do you have 4 dogs and 2 cats? As a landlord, that is an automatic no for me, and I know I'm not alone, so I am wondering why people have multiple (or any, really) pets when they are tenants? They are responsible for any damage the pet does, and it can get expensive if that cat urinates on the walls marking his territory, or that old dog just can't hold it anymore. You can end up paying for hardwood floor replacements or drywall and repainting.

 

So WHY do tenants have multiple pets? I'm curious, because being the practical person that I am, I would eliminate all completely voluntary causes of potential damage that might cost me money. Obviously, I'm keeping the kid or kids(!), but the pets just seem like an extravagance I can't afford as a tenant. So....if I'm not hijacking too much....I'd really like to know what people are thinking here. Do they not worry about pet damage? I know some landlords who take pets, but with really high deposits because they know that damage typically follows. It's true that some pets are less destructive than some kids - and I've taken 3 eight year old labs or boxers in 11 years - but generally, non-pet owning tenants are preferable so why do so many tenants have pets? Assuage my curiousity! :tongue_smilie:

 

On animals. Most of the places we've rented, we have not had animals. Generally, they are not accepted. However, the cases where we have had animals (and currently do) or known others to have animals were:

 

1: rural places where goats, sheep, and chickens are acceptable...goats for weed control.

 

2: dogs for security.

 

3: cats for pest control.

 

As much as I care for our pets, they are just that, pets. If it came to having a roof over our head or keeping our pets, the pets would be rehomed.

 

On painting, most rental agencies we've worked with, consider painting every two years to be normal wear and tear expectations and required of the landlords they work with. Magic Erasers can be damaging to walls and paint unless you have a glossy paint up. Beyond that, normal cleaning falls upon the tenant. In one place, the lease required that we steam the carpets upon moving out; we did, however we did not anywhere else that did not require it. I painted walls in one place, not required, but since it needed it, I did it. Still didn't get my deposit back. I've learned over the years that I can just expect my deposit to be kept, even when a cleaning crew had been hired to clean the home and there is no damage. Most landlords, ime, know that many tenants are not in a position to spend more money than the deposit going to court just to get the deposit. So we just expect "no deposit back".

Edited May 12, 2012 by mommaduck

[TranquilMind]

:iagree: the ONLY time we ever had to repaint was because of crappy flat paint. (I HATE FLAT PAINT!!) I swear that paint attacts dirt and you can't clean it without just making it worse looking.

 

Semi gloss latex paint all the way in this house. I can scrub the heck out of it if necessary and it doesn't ding/chip much at all.

 

As a side note, magic eraser markers made my kitchen walls look like I'd just painted them and they haven't been painted in over 7 years!!!! It doesn't work for flat paint tho. Still 2 erasers and 2 kids and about 30 minutes to have a fresh looking kitchen?!! I am one happy woman!:D

True. Flat paint is a bad choice! It does hide flaws in older plaster walls, but it's not worth it!

[TranquilMind]

I've learned over the years that I can just expect my deposit to be kept, even when a cleaning crew had been hired to clean the home and there is no damage. Most landlords, ime, know that many tenants are not in a position to spend more money than the deposit going to court just to get the deposit. So we just expect "no deposit back".

 

This should not happen to you at all, absent damage.

 

I'm happy to say I have returned 100% of all deposits in 11 years, with two exceptions:

 

One tenant asked me to hire a cleaner because she had 3 boys and simply did not have time to move, clean, and work at her job. I complied and hired a reasonably priced cleaner (like 50 bucks, at the time) and she got all the rest of the deposit back.

 

The other tenant had a Dish installed directly into the shingles despite being prohibited in the Lease from doing this (tenant must have a pole installed and the dish on the pole, rather than damage my roof, which will leak). I hired a roofer to give me an estimate for the damage repair, and tenant got rest of the deposit back, as I recall.

[Murphy101]

We've always gotten our full deposit back.:001_huh:

[TranquilMind]

We've always gotten our full deposit back.:001_huh:

I'm so surprised.

 

;) (kidding)

[Murphy101]

I'm so surprised.

 

;) (kidding)

 

Me too actually! I heard so many horror stories of people not getting their deposit back that I was always surprised to get mine!

[mommaduck]

Me too actually! I heard so many horror stories of people not getting their deposit back that I was always surprised to get mine!

Yes, well, cheaper housing is usually run by slumlords. We're not exactly the kind of family that can pay $1200-$2000 in rent.

[Murphy101]

Yes, well, cheaper housing is usually run by slumlords. We're not exactly the kind of family that can pay $1200-$2000 in rent.

 

What?!:001_huh: Where did I ever say anything like that? I can't afford that either! Yikes. That's more than my mortgage payment!

 

 

ETA: I think it is more likely that cheap rent landlords know their renters are less likely to fight back. (((hugs))) I know being low income costs poorer people more in everything just to exist. (((hugs)))

Edited May 13, 2012 by Martha

[Jpoy85]

Me too actually! I heard so many horror stories of people not getting their deposit back that I was always surprised to get mine!

 

Eek. Im glad you get it back!

 

I do agree that some people likely dont fight back or know how. Its always important to know your renters rights and the rental laws in general + a number to Legal Aid if you ever need it.

[nd293]

I don't know where you are currently living, so I don't know if this has any practical application for you, but a friend who had two very large dogs (and two smaller boys) was having trouble finding a rental. Finally, when she was looking at a rental property close to her current home, the agent suggested coming around and checking out the state of her current home. The agent was thus able to satisfy herself that the dogs (and children!) were not a problem, and that the home was well maintained. If you live far from where you are looking, perhaps you could engage your current agent to negotiate for a rental on your behalf, or something similar?

[TravelingChris]

We have rented two houses in the last few years with pets and had no problems. I also owned a house which we rented and allowed pets with prior permission- that would not be four dogs and two cats, though. We specifically restricted certain breeds of dogs, all dogs and cats would have to be neutered, and cats would have to have front claws declawed. Our renters ended up not having any pets.

 

We always rented a four bedroom and we only had five people. In the four bedroom we had for rent for a few years, we would only have allowed 8 people maximum ( family). For unattached, it would be four max.

 

My animals never damaged anything- my kids did but either we repaired it or we had it taken out of the deposit. We had to pay for two rooms repainted in Florida because the supposedly non stick, non marking special tape wasn't as promised. I think the landlords withheld about 500 for the two rooms and also a stretch of carpeting that was damaged (some spills, not pet related). In the last house, with wood floors, we had nothing withheld. But yes, we were renting houses that were 2000-3000 a month.

[Brilliant]

This is a common tenant urban legend. Unless something has changed recently (please cite the statute or regulation because I can't find one), there is NO law in the country that requires landlords to paint every two years, or even between tenants.

 

I don't know if it was a law, but I am 100% certain that we signed a lease in either Texas or Oregon that had a paint clause. If anything had to be repainted after 1 year, the tenant was responsible for the cost. After 2 years it was a split cost. After 3 or more years of renting it was assumed normal wear & tear would cause a need for repainting and the landlord would cover the cost upon vacating.

[Brilliant]

So you'd rather not be able to find a place for the family and stay crammed in a one bedroom than to get rid of the four dogs so you can find a place for the family that suits you better?

 

I don't get it. Honestly.

 

:iagree: I found this description horrifying:

You can smell the dog feces and cat litter from outside their apartment doors. The Landlord wont even go in some apartments because there is actually dog poop stuck on the hardwood floors....

The ONLY reason no one is evicted is because the landlord is a slum lord ... This building and its chaos is why MOST landlords take Pets into consideration before the amount of people.

 

I love my dog. We had to pay an extra $500 deposit to rent the house we're in now. But if keeping him meant my family had to live in a slum - goodbye, sweet doggie!