Landlord or Tenant

Sentencia 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016 - Peru

El demandante interpuso esta demanda de amparo contra los propietarios del edificio en el que alquilaba su piso por haber prohibido recientemente la entrada de animales de compañía en el edificio y no permitirles utilizar el ascensor. El demandante alega que, con la prohibición de animales de compañía, se han vulnerado varios de sus derechos de propiedad. También planteó cuestiones de salud y seguridad para las mascotas en relación con el hecho de que no se les permitiera coger el ascensor.

Judgment 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016 - Peru

Summary: The plaintiff brought this amparo suit against the owners of the building where he rented his apartment for newly prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that, through the prohibition of pets, several of his property rights have been violated. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court declared the claim founded and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties.

The plaintiff brought this amparo suit against the owners of the building where he rented his apartment for newly prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that, through the prohibition of pets, several of his property rights have been violated. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court declared the claim founded and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties.

00949-2022-PA/TC Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete

Este caso trata de la tenencia de mascotas y de los derechos constitucionales de las personas en los espacios de alquiler vacacional. La opinión mayoritaria razonó que el espacio de alquiler estaba autorizado a prohibir los animales de compañía, ya que lo hacía como expresión de la voluntad compartida de los cohabitantes, y por tanto, no violaba los derechos del demandante, ya que éste entró voluntariamente en la propiedad.

00949-2022-PA/TC Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete

This case is about pet ownership and a person’s constitutional rights within vacation rental spaces. The majority opinion reasoned that the rental space was permitted to prohibit pets, as it was doing so as an expression of the cohabitors’ shared wills, and therefore, does not violate the plaintiff’s rights as he willingly entered the property. The court noted how service animals are working animals, and not just “pets,” whose presence is required for their owners to enjoy the full accessibility of the property in question, and cannot be prohibited.

Labor Commission v. FCS Community Management

Summary: This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief.

This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief.

IL - Insurance - 5/143.10e. Home property insurance; dog breeds

Summary: This law was amended in 2023 to prohibit homeowner insurance discrimination based on the breed of dog. The law states that, with respect to homeowner's insurance policies and renter's insurance policies issued, renewed, modified, altered, or amended on or after the effective date this act, no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel, charge or impose an increased premium or rate for a policy or contract, or exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage under a policy or contract based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds.

This law was amended in 2023 to prohibit homeowner insurance discrimination based on the breed of dog. The law states that, with respect to homeowner's insurance policies and renter's insurance policies issued, renewed, modified, altered, or amended on or after the effective date this act, no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel, charge or impose an increased premium or rate for a policy or contract, or exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage under a policy or contract based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds.

MN - Declaw - 504B.114. Pet declawing and devocalization prohibited

Summary: This Maine law, effective January 1, 2024, prohibits a landlord who allows an animal from: (1) advertising the availability of a real property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real property because an applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized; (2) refusing to allow the occupancy of a real property, refusing to negotiate the occupancy of a real property, or otherwise making unavailable or deny to another person the occupancy of a real property because of that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize an animal; or (3) requiring a tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or devocalize an animal allowed on the premises.

This Maine law, effective January 1, 2024, prohibits a landlord who allows an animal from: (1) advertising the availability of a real property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real property because an applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized; (2) refusing to allow the occupancy of a real property, refusing to negotiate the occupancy of a real property, or otherwise making unavailable or deny to another person the occupancy of a real property because of that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize an animal; or (3) requiring a tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or devocalize an animal allowed on the premises.

MD - Housing - Subtitle 8. Pet Protections

Summary: This subtitle applies to an action for possession of real property filed on or after November 1, 2023. In addition, by October 1, 2023, the Department of Agriculture shall develop and publish on its website a fact sheet that provides information about how a person may care for and protect any pets in the event the person is evicted or loses possession of the person's property. When possession of real property is delivered to a landlord following an eviction or other described action, law enforcement or other official must immediately inspect the premises for any pet and provide that pet to the tenant. If the tenant is not present, that official must contact an animal shelter or animal rescue to take possession of the pet along with contact information of the former tenant.

This subtitle applies to an action for possession of real property filed on or after November 1, 2023. In addition, by October 1, 2023, the Department of Agriculture shall develop and publish on its website a fact sheet that provides information about how a person may care for and protect any pets in the event the person is evicted or loses possession of the person's property. When possession of real property is delivered to a landlord following an eviction or other described action, law enforcement or other official must immediately inspect the premises for any pet and provide that pet to the tenant. If the tenant is not present, that official must contact an animal shelter or animal rescue to take possession of the pet along with contact information of the former tenant.

ME - Housing - § 6025-A. Access to care for animals

Summary: This 2023 law states that a landlord may also require, as a condition of tenancy, that the tenant allow the landlord to enter the rental unit in the case of an emergency when the welfare of the animal is at risk to determine whether the animal has been abandoned or is in need of care. If the landlord determines that a tenant with an animal has vacated the premises or is unable to care for the animal due to death or disability, the landlord may contact a person authorized by the tenant, a humane agent, an animal control officer or an animal shelter to pick up and care for the animal.

This 2023 law states that a landlord may also require, as a condition of tenancy, that the tenant allow the landlord to enter the rental unit in the case of an emergency when the welfare of the animal is at risk to determine whether the animal has been abandoned or is in need of care. If the landlord determines that a tenant with an animal has vacated the premises or is unable to care for the animal due to death or disability, the landlord may contact a person authorized by the tenant, a humane agent, an animal control officer or an animal shelter to pick up and care for the animal.

NV - Housing - 116.318. Right of units’ owners to keep pet

Summary: This Nevada law enacted in 2019 states that the executive board of an association shall not and the governing documents of that association must not prohibit a unit's owner from keeping at least one pet within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner has a right to occupy and use exclusively.

This Nevada law enacted in 2019 states that the executive board of an association shall not and the governing documents of that association must not prohibit a unit's owner from keeping at least one pet within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner has a right to occupy and use exclusively.