[deandrecooke]

I'm not sure how a private landlord would do it.

The problem is, maybe their dog doesn't LOOK like a stereotypical pit bull, and it was after the fact that someone said to the landlord, "well an AmStaff is considered a pit bull" (such as the landlord's homeowner's insurance company?)

[BrianGoldsmith]

Before passing any judgment on either parties, I'd like to know what Galadriel said. If the landlord said "no pit bulls" or "no pit bull type dogs," and the owners claimed the dog was "an AmStaff...not a pit bull," then the renters are in the wrong.

AND if that were the case, not only could he tell them to get their dog out, but if he did have to pay any additional costs on his homeowners insurance he could sue them for damages. If they were sneaky about it I would get out now before he gets a lawyer.

[Shemker394]

He gave permission for the dog in writing, met the dog before the lease was signed? Yeah, that was his mistake and IMO he should have been made to allow the renters to stay with their dog until the lease was up and have to pay the additional insurance premium because he made the mistake.

The only way I would agree the renters were at fault is if the lease specified not "pit bulls" or "pit bull type" dogs.

[sFs4aOok]

Okay I have a little more info today. This guy was not organized in the least. The lease was very vague as was the pet addendum which was nothing more than a paper saying that the renters agreed to pay such and such amount to have their dog on the property. There was nothing in any of it about breeds or anything like that. However the renters did request in writing after the landlord agreed their American Staffordshire Terrier could live there, a written agreement. If I'm getting all the facts there was never any mention of breeds he didn't allow, until after they moved in. And apparently the landlords story was that this was his first rental. He bought a house, fixed it up and decided to rent it out. So I don't think he was too prepared but then again who knows.

I mean you are right, we can't pass judgement. I think it might have just been a matter of miscommunication and parties not doing their research and being unprepared but I just thought it was weird. Again good old craigslist, definately not the place to find a rental home among other things.

Ofcourse we are getting all this info secondhand as well. We will never know the whole story

[lalffibra]

I always take my dogs to look at prospective houses WITH me along with their Rental Resumes and copies of certificates and awards!

[capeAngedlelp]

If the lease didn't say no pit bulls, then he has no right to kick them out. You can't just change a contract because you don't like a piece of it without consent of the other party. Then, if you do change the contract, you have to write up an entirely new contract and sign it, BOTH parties.
That guy had no idea what he was doing, and they should get their money back for whatever they paid him. I'd take him to small claims court.

[BrianGoldsmith]

They can't get their money back if he breaches the contract because they agreed to pay that amount. But if they look around and can't find a place to live for the amount he offered, he would actually have to compensate them for their increased rent. So if he offered them the place for $1000 a month and the best they can do is $1200, he would have to give them $2,800...$200 for each of the 14 months in the lease. And if they can't find anyone to let them rent with their dog, the court could actually make him go through with the lease because they had relied on his promise. So yea, if we are getting all of the facts and these people can't find another place to live, small claims court would be a good idea.

I hope this guy learned from his mistake, because this could end up being an expensive mistake.

[capeAngedlelp]

I meant the money he's planning on keeping on of their security and pet deposits. A deposit is just that. And they should be able to get their deposit back unless he can point out the damages that were accrued. No?

[sFs4aOok]

I meant the money he's planning on keeping on of their security and pet deposits. A deposit is just that. And they should be able to get their deposit back unless he can point out the damages that were accrued. No?

You would think. I don't know what all happened with the court stuff. For all I know they are still battling things out. But I was told they were just happy to be out of that house and lease. So I don't know if they pursued it any further. They did find another place to rent. Its smaller and not as nice but its also a bit cheaper and there dog is allowed.
I'll tell you hearing about rental horror stories and knowing some of the hoops I've had to jump through when renting my mutt. I don't think I'll bring in another dog until I am a home owner.

[BrianGoldsmith]

I meant the money he's planning on keeping on of their security and pet deposits. A deposit is just that. And they should be able to get their deposit back unless he can point out the damages that were accrued. No?

Oh oh oh...yea they should be able to get their deposit back for sure. I'm not sure it would be worth going to court over after court fees and such, but you're right.

[satthackacibe]

He probably found out from his insurance company after the fact that they don't cover pitbulls or they want to charge him a bunch of money for it. Not sure if ignorance is a valid defense when you've written up and agreed to a contract. It sure doesn't seem legal.

[suilusargaino]

I am glad they found another place. I would not want to be somewhere my dog is not wanted it is to easy for someone to place a call on your crazy PitBull and the dog fights in your back yard then your life is miserable and you may lose your dog. Hopefully they will remember this life lesson in the future and be very clear on the breed of choice. I am not saying it is right that we have to tell the Landlord its a pitbull type dog but its better then the outcome they just had

[sFs4aOok]

I was just told about this a bit ago

A friend of a friend has an American Staffordshire Terrier. Her and her husband were looking for a place to rent so they went through a private landlord and found a great little house at a great price that allowed their dog.

The landlord agreed to allow them to have their dog. They got the agreement in writing and there were witnesses. They signed an 14 month lease. A few weeks after they moved in the landlord came by and told them the dog had to go. That they lied that the dog was what it was and that he doesn't allow "pit bulls". The idiot didn't realize that the American Staffordshire Terrier was a "Pit Bull type breed" when he agreed to allow the dog and his pocketbook took a major hit with the insurance discovered what the breed was. I'm assuming he thought a Pit Bull was a Pit Bull and didn't know that different breeds fall under "Pit Bull" but still if you have been renting to people awhile I would assume you would know that.
Needless to say the landlord said the dog had to go. They renters refused to give up the dog and wanted to terminate the lease. When he wouldn't terminate the lease they went to court over the dog issue. Finally after 7 months the landlord was willing to terminate the lease but he expected 3 months worth of rent and them to forfeit both their deposit and pet deposit. (During this time the dog was staying with a relative)
I don't know for sure how it turned out, I know they no longer live there. I'm not sure if they paid the 3 months and gave up their deposit or if it was all settled in court.

I'm just wondering was the landlord in the wrong or was he just an idiot? Should they have had to give up their dog even with the written agreement?

[QysnZWB4]

Legally, I think he was in the wrong.

Although, in our society, with ignorance even from judges and lawyers, I can see a lawyer arguing "well this dog IS a pit bull" while the other lawyer argues, "no, it's not" and it could go on all day.

I don't think they should have had to give up the dog - they had in a written, legal binding contract that the dog was allow, period. It doesn't matter if he found out it "was a pit bull" or not, in the contract it says allowed. He's just pissed he had to pay more money, sounds like a greedy bastard to me.

I would've went to the insurance company and also fought it, or found a different renters insurance that covered my dog at no extra cost.

Though, I'm not a lawyer, but I know a contract is a legal binding document.

[suilusargaino]

well The landlord was in the wrong but at the same time so are the renters owning certain breeds of dogs and renting can be tricky and You need to ensure the landlord knows what breed of dog you have that will make life easier he may not have realized that the Amstaff is classified under Pitbull for insurance and we need to make that clear to the landlord because some insurance companies will cancel your insurance

[SteantyjetMaw]

I think it was both parties fault actually. Because for one, no they didn't HIDE the breed, but at the same time they didn't exactly specify fully either...its hard to explain how it is processed in my mind. But at the same time it was the landlords fault to not look into it further. I guess a lot of people have a hard time putting two and two together if "Pit" or "Bull" isn't thrown into the breed label. (Ie: American BULLdog, Staffordshire BULL terrier, American PIT BULL terrier, BULLdog etc) A lot of people don't see American Staffordshire Terrier as a threatening "Label" I guess...when they don't know dog breeds.

[sFs4aOok]

I personally never considered someone wouldn't look into it. I know when we rent and some one asks us what breed we have. We give them the breed. Granted we don't have a pit bull or pit bull type breed (I say that loosely, we have a mutt, we don't know what we have). I just tell them what her adoption papers say. Or when I had purebreds I gave the breed.

But I mean to me that is like you own a labrador retriever. What do breed do you own: A labrador retriever. So if you have an Amstaff: What breed do you own: American Staffordshire Terrier. I guess to me its common sence that if you are unsure about a breed, don't promise, check into it and get back to them if you are a landlord. But you would think they would already know what breeds they can and can't allow. Then again these people found this house through craigslist. Go figure.

Honestly I'm not sure anyone was in the wrong. I do think that when the landlord found out that the Amstaff was not covered or was going to cost them more, he should have just let them out of their lease right away fee or no fee. I don't think they were in the wrong because they gave him their dogs breed. And the dog is papered as American Staffordshire Terrier. That's the dogs breed.

I don't know. I just know that if you go to an apartment they have a list of breeds they don't allow and the ones I've lived at lists all pit bull type breeds separately as American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier. They have that readily avaliable. Then again they weren't dealing with an apartment

[duribass]

I didn't read it as the people were trying to pull one over on the landlord. But I am not going to say it is 100% the landlord's fault, but he didn't do his home work. You would think that if he is in the business of renting out space and allowing dogs, he would know what breeds he would not want to allow in his rental properties.

When I asked about my home owners insurance company they were pretty specific with breeds I would have to pay an extra premium for. They did say both Pit Bulls and American Staffordshire Terrier, so the landlord should have already been informed that the breed would raise his premium.

[sFs4aOok]

Oh I seriously doubt they were trying to pull the wool over the landlords eyes. I've met them a few times and they are really nice people. There kids are respectful and I've never met the dog but I'm told the dog is a real treasure. They are good down to earth people from what I can tell.

I do know they were turned down 4 times before finding this place because of the Amstaff and were thrilled when this guy said he didn't have an issue with their dog. Obviously it was miscommunication somewhere.

I'm not close enough to the situation to really know.

[BrianGoldsmith]

Well from my law class I would say they had a legally binding contract and this was a unilateral mistake of fact, meaning only one party was mistaken. The only way he could be relieved from the contract is if he could prove that they knew he made the mistake at the time the contract was drafted and went along with it anyways. So for example if he had said "your dog is fine, but i never allow pit bulls" they would know he was mistaken and would be held responsible and he could breach the contract without punishment.

If they were both mistaken then he would be able to rescind the contract. But in my opinion only one party was mistaken. They agreed that he would allow American Staffordshire Terriers and he was mistaken about the breed. Had they agreed that "pit bulls" were allowed and he meant APBTs and she meant AmStaffs that would be a mutual mistake. I don't think that's the nature of what happened here.

So no, legally, he can not change his mind.

But to be honest, if it were me I would probably agree to cancel it and leave just so I didn't have to deal with the guys BS.