By Steve Boudreault, Buildium, Boston, MA

Ah, pets. What to do about pets?

There are all sorts of policies out there when it comes to renting to people with pets. Some properties adopt a hardline stance: no pets of any kind. Some properties only allow pets that are in aquariums or cages. Some allow pets up to and including cats, but no dogs. Some allow dogs, but impose a weight limit on the little guys. Properties that allow Great Danes and Russian Wolfhounds are rare, but are out there. Expect a hefty pet deposit, though.

So what’s the story? Why so many different approaches to pets? What are some pros and cons? Read on …

Pros

Having a pet-friendly policy can mean more revenue. Some families treat their pets as full-fledged members of the family, and would sooner live on the street with pet in tow than live someplace that forced them to give the pet up. By advertising a pet-friendly policy, your property can be a shining beacon to those who are finding NO DOGS ALLOWED signs everywhere else they look. And they’ll likely spread the word to other pet owners who are looking.

More pets can equal a better community. There are numerous studies out there that show a direct connection between pet ownership and happiness. If you’ve got happy residents, you’ll have a happy property. Everyone wants a happy property. Also, there’s a greater likelihood that residents will bond because of their pets, meaning a closer-knit community as well.

Cons

Pets can be annoying or downright destructive. Some dogs head straight for the bed when their owner leaves and sleep until they come home, but some dogs will bark all day, ceaselessly, which can be a real headache for neighbors. Some cats only use the scratching post, and some prefer the unit’s lovely wall-to-wall carpeting. Even an unstable fish tank that takes a tumble can cause hundreds or even thousands of dollars’ worth of damage. Be sure to have a pet deposit in place, and make owners aware of excessive noise.

Some owners can be disingenuous. A new resident may hand over a pet deposit while showing the property manager an adorable teacup Pomeranian, and then after the paperwork is signed, sneak in their Great Dane under cover of darkness. If you suspect the ol’ bait and switch, stop by unexpectedly to see how the tenant is settling in and listen for a tiny yip or a throaty woof.

Whether you choose to allow pets in your property is ultimately up to you. Just as you’ll find pet-loving families who won’t move in without their beloved pup, similarly you’ll find families who prefer a pet-free zone, especially those with allergies.

So what’s your policy when it comes to pets?

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Well my last post was so good I did not have the courage to write another. About six months ago we were discussing various scenarios by which a landlord could be held liable in California for injuries or property damage occasioned by her tenants. We discussed how, if she knows about a tenant’s animals’ dangerous propensities, she might have a duty to prevent injuries of property damage to others arising from such dangerous propensities. Citation to the holy hand grenade scene must have subconsciously made me think I had reached my pinnacle in blog writing material. No more blog posts! Until now.

What inspired this sudden turn of events? Alcohol. And a recent Buffalo Wild Wings beer with a Buildium person. As we discussed Buildium and life over beers, it occurred to me that I needed to re-engage the ATPM blog readers regarding the perils of tenants’ overindulgence in alcohol and resultant personal injuries and property damage. Is there liability? If the landlord knows the tenant has a gun and is a heavy drinker, is she liable if the tenant shoots someone while drunk? Is the drinker the equivalent of a dangerous dog?

In California, the landlord will not have a duty where she merely knows the tenant is a drinker and has guns. In one case, the plaintiff was a visitor of the tenants and was shot when the tenant was drinking. The landlord knew the tenant was a drinker and knew he had firearms. The landlord was not aware of any circumstances that suggested the tenant was dangerous with the guns when drinking. So there really was no notice to the landlord of a danger she should have prevented or been warned about. ”If the court concludes the injury was not foreseeable, there was no duty.”  Sturgeon v. Curnutt, 29 Cal. App. 4th 301, 306 (1994).  The court here concluded the injury was not foreseeable. And thus the landlord had no duty to prevent it. The landlord won.

In a similar case, a college was exonerated from civil liability for injuries sustained after some students got drunk and went racing.  I’m sorry — “became intoxicated” and “engaged in a speed contest.” In this case, the court held that it was not foreseeable that in-dormitory drinking would lead to an off-campus automobile drag race. The “conduct of students, without known violent propensities and without knowledge that they would drink to excess and thereafter operate motor vehicles, does not rise to the level of foreseeable harm as does a case where the tenant has a known vicious dog.”  Baldwin v. Zoradi, 123 Cal. App. 3d 275, 294 (1981).

Obviously, the appellate justices in that case had not seen the second-greatest movie of all time — Animal House.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.