Changed Bylaws for pets

Back in Feb. of this year a friend asked her landlord if she could get a dog. They said that she would have to pay a $200.00 non refundable deposit, and do an amendment to her lease. She first moved into the condo back in 2009, so its not like she just moved into this place. In April they changed the bylaws and now only the owners of the condos can have pets and renters who have them must leave or get rid of the pet. She was told about this around the first of july. She has talked to her landlord and they are upset also but bylaws are bylaws, and if you want to buy the condo you can. Can they make her do this if it says in her lease that she can have the pet? She now has until the 27th of july to move or the pet goes or the owner will be fined 100.00 a day until one is done. Help please

Yes she is a renter and she has already paid the 200.00 back in feb to the owner of the condo and they changed her lease to add the dog to it. Then in April the HOA changed the laws and now renters cant have them but if you own the condo you can have it. She did everything that she was suppose to do with the owner, but the HOA is the one that is making her leave or the pet or both

Julie,

Have the tenants Dr. write a prescription for an emotional suppot dog. That will shut the Board up. But seriously, the association may not ban dogs from renters only. What is good for the members is also good for the member's tenants. That would be unequal treatment for selected residents.

Also, a pet that was properly approved and paid for has vested interest in the community. Once this dog is no longer alive or in the unit, then they could make a rule that it may not be replaced with another one but again, then that goes for every unit, not just renters.

Florida has some pretty tight Tenant Rights laws and I cannot see where this tenant could be forced to move because the Board changed the game rules.

Thank you very much everyone and I will send all this on to her. I didnt think that it sounded fair and I feel sorry for her because the dog is a rescue dog, and has just found his forever master. So this is very sad that this has to happen. Again thank you all very much and i will let her know what she can do.

Julie

Petunka,

Restricting renters and not restricting owners is opening up a can of worms ( some humor here) Everyone who is bound by the rules and covenants of an association must be treated equally, no matter who they are. Tenants have rights, the same as owners except for the right to vote and to participate in the business of an association.

My rental unit in Florida has removed my rights to use the pool and tennis courts, the gym and the ceramics room because I have turned those useage rights to my tenant by way of them signing the lease. You said that it seems legal to restrict pets only to owners. I would argue that it is not legal to do so.

You said that it seems legal to restrict pets only to owners. I would argue that it is not legal to do so.

Donna,

Here are a couple of pet judgements from my 2005-2009 notes:

1. Grove Isle Condominium Association, Inc. v. Levey, et al.: the association had a pet restriction allowing owners to maintain pets, but renters were not. The arbitrator ruled: “it does not appear that the rule against pet ownership by tenants is wholly arbitrary, violates public policy, or abrogates a fundamental constitutional right.”

In this instance, the tenants were required to remove their dog from the unit.

2. Quatraine Condominium. v. Convisor and Sotolongo; the association did not allow pets pets by tenants, but allowed owners to keep pets. It was concluded that the rule precluding
tenants from having pets was enforceable, and that the differential treatment between owners and tenants was valid.

Hi Julie,
As a lover of dogs and kitties, your friend's situation piqued my interest and I did some research at Attys Becker and Poliokoff's website....
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/pubs/publications.html
... where a search for "PETS" returned 81 hits.

In many of the attorney responses to homwowners' inquiries, it was stated many times that there are many condo associations in Florida that have different requirements for tenants than those required by unit owners regarding pets.

I'm curious as to the timeline you mention in your post. When did she actually get the dog? If the bylaws were changed in April (I understand she didn't become aware until late July) and she had the dog in February or early March, I would pursue getting her dog grandfathered in. Additionally, by-law changes usually require a super majority to amend and the process takes a few weeks if not months. I would immagine her landlord was notified of the associations' intent to make this by-law change. The timing of all of this is critical, in my opinion for a plea of grandfathering.

Below are a couple responses I read on the atty website:

Question: The covenants for our homeowner’s association state that renters (tenants) cannot have dogs, although owners are allowed to keep pets. I want to rent my property to a person who has a small dog. I was under
the impression that renters have the same rights as owners except for the fact that they cannot vote or attend board meetings. Is this correct? R.K.

Answer: The state agency which administers
condominiums has ruled that condominium documents
may impose different requirements on tenants than exist
for unit owners with respect to use of units. Accordingly,
in the condominium setting, it is relatively clear that
an association can prohibit tenants from keeping pets,
through proper enactment of an amendment to the
condominium documents. A condominium association
cannot, however, discriminate against tenants in the use
of common elements. For example, a condominium
association could not declare that the swimming pool
would only be open to tenants during certain hours, while
open to unit owners at all times.
For HOA’s, there is no state agency which makes similar
pronouncements. The issue has not been addressed by
the Florida courts. In my opinion, a properly enacted
clause in the governing documents for a homeowner’s
association that prohibited tenants from keeping pets,
while permitting pets for parcel owners, would be upheld
as valid.
..........................................................................

The Florida Condominium Act specifically states that
an association cannot discriminate against tenants
in the use of common elements generally made
available for use of other unit owners. For example,
a condominium association could not permit unit
owners to park extra cars in the guest parking area,
while prohibiting tenants from having the same
right. Conversely, the state agency which regulates
condominiums has upheld restrictions which treat
tenants differently with respect to the use of the unit,
as opposed to the common elements. For example,
at least one decision has upheld a clause contained in
condominium documents which permits unit owners
to keep pets, but prohibits tenants from keeping
pets.
In the homeowners’ association context, there is no
statutory regulation of tenant issues. In general, the
governing documents will control.
.......................................................................
Thanks for reading this "epistle", Julie

Ann
PS....Petunka's replies are spot on according to my research

Have you read all the posts? It appears such a selective rule already has withstood legal muster. Read the court decisions.

Yes it was in feb. that she asked her landlord to get a dog and they said yes and changed her lease from no dog to add the dog to the lease and took a pet deposit. Then in april they changed the rules and told her at the beginning of july told her she has to go with the dog or the dog goes her choice. Her landlord didnt know anything about it (so she says) until they sent her a notice that the dog had to go. The landlord has put her condo up for sale now because of all this, she doesnt want anything to do with the condo place because of all this with the dog. Plus she found out today that 5 other people renting have dogs and they dont have to move. This has turned into a fight now I guess. She is now finding a lawyer.