Dog-Owning Tenant Barks Up Wrong Tree
Question: My landlord and I had always gotten along until he learned that I had a dog. I know my lease stated “cat OK” but didn’t explicitly rule out a dog.
Sparky is small, quiet and well-behaved, and I take good care of my place. None of the neighbors have complained, and in fact many have stated that they feel safer knowing there’s a dog in the building. There’s no reason for my landlord to be upset, except that Sparky is a dog and not a cat. Isn’t this a form of housing discrimination?
Answer: A dog (or any other pet) is not a protected category under federal and state fair housing laws. The only time an animal becomes a discrimination matter is when it is a service animal for a person with a disability. A seeing-eye dog is classified as a service animal. In that case, the animal is not a pet, and the landlord must allow the animal’s presence as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
In addition, Section 1990-1 of California’s Health and Safety Code states that if a landlord is a public agency, a senior or other person requiring supportive services must be allowed up to two pets as companions.
Although living with an animal can be one of life’s great joys, it is never a good idea to do so in violation of your lease or behind your landlord’s back.
Many landlords are discovering, however, that there are benefits to allowing their tenants to keep pets, including lower turnover and improved upkeep of the property by tenants.
Some organizations even provide helpful resources for landlords and tenants converting to a “pets OK” policy. For more information, call the local humane society, which should be listed in the Yellow Pages of your phone book.
The humane society can help you learn about landlord incentives, tenant resources and pet-friendly housing referrals.
Evicting Mom, Kids Would Violate Law
Q: I recently purchased a two-bedroom condominium as a rental investment. A mother and her three children have been living in the unit for four years, and I had planned on continuing their lease.
However, when I last visited the property, the president of the homeowners association asked that I evict them. She said the children are “wild, undisciplined and bother other residents. Besides, most of the homeowners agree that this complex should be for adults only.”
What should I do? I want to let my tenants stay, but I also want to have a good relationship with the homeowners association.
A: The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibit owners and managers of rental property from discrimination against families with children.
Senior-only housing is the one form of housing exempt from these laws, and California has very detailed regulations regarding what constitutes bona fide senior-only housing.
Housing discrimination against families with children comes in many forms. Some landlords and managers deny housing outright by telling a prospective tenant that they simply don’t allow children. But this is rarely the case.
Most, in an attempt to circumvent the law, will accept the prospective tenant’s application, then choose a childless applicant instead. Others will “steer” the prospective tenant to a certain part of the complex inhabited only by other families with children.
Still others will try to make the unit as undesirable as possible to the prospective tenant by pointing out all the potential hazards to children (stairs, decks, pools, etc.), or by quoting higher rents and deposit rates.
All of these practices are illegal under the fair housing laws.
You are justified in wanting to be on good terms with the homeowners association; however, as an owner of rental property, you must obey the law.
Contact your local fair housing agency to determine if your complex qualifies as senior-only housing. If it does not, inform the president of the homeowners association of the laws prohibiting familial status discrimination.
Assure the association that you will speak to your tenant regarding proper supervision of her children, but that you will not evict her simply because she has children.
If the association protests your decision, contact your local fair housing agency for assistance.
Late Fee Must Be Tied to Landlord’s Costs
Q: My tenant is unable to pay next month’s rent on time because of a mix-up with her disability check. A replacement check will arrive about 10 days after the rent is due. Her rental agreement says only that a fee of $40 will be charged whenever rent is late, but I want to charge her $40 a day until the rent is paid. Can I do that?
A: Even though there is no Civil Code that addresses exactly how much a late fee can be, it must be reasonable and reflect the monetary damages a landlord experiences whenever rent is paid late.
A late fee of $40 a day (for 10 days) would probably exceed the actual costs incurred by a landlord and could be considered excessive. If the rental agreement states that the late fee is a one-time charge of $40, then that is the total amount that can be charged.
If you want to charge a daily fee, you must give your tenant a notice of change in terms of tenancy that states how much the new late fee will be per day, beginning 30 days from the time the notice is served.
One way to avoid unreasonable charges is to set late fees either as a one-time amount or as a daily fee with a ceiling. Again, these amounts need to reflect your actual costs. If you need more assistance, contact your local housing mediation program.
One Roommate Stays, so Deposit Stays Too
Q: Two roommates and I have been renting a house together; all of us were named in the rental agreement. Two of us moved out at the end of last month, after giving a 30-day notice of termination of tenancy to the owner. Each of us gave the owner a deposit of $500 when we moved in. It is more than 21 days since we moved out, and we haven’t received a refund of our deposit.
We called the landlord, who said that the third roommate is still there and that he, the landlord, does not have to return the deposit until everyone has vacated. We really need the money, and it doesn’t seem right that the landlord can hang onto our deposit. What do you think?
A: The landlord may legally retain the deposit until all tenants terminate their tenancy. Unless there is a written agreement between the owner and the tenants to the contrary, it is up to the tenants to settle the deposit issue among themselves. Landlords do not have to settle a deposit until the last tenant vacates.
Unless you can persuade the remaining tenant to settle up with you now, you will have to wait. In the future, if you will be renting with others, you may want to establish ground rules for deposit disbursement, preferably in writing when the tenancy begins.
‘Security Deposit’ Lives Up to Its Name
Q: I recently decided to rent out a room in my home. I will not be collecting last month’s rent, but I will collect a deposit of twice the monthly rent. What should I call this deposit in the rental agreement? Is it a “cleaning” deposit or a “security” deposit?
A: In the past, landlords used to collect two deposits, one called cleaning and one called security. The use of the funds in each deposit was restricted to the specific name of the deposit.
For example, a cleaning deposit could be used only for cleaning and a security deposit could be used for all end-of-tenancy issues, including cleaning, repairs and unpaid rent.
Because a security deposit has wider usage, savvy landlords now use only that designation.
Deposits are regulated by California Civil Code 1950.5(b). This code states that a deposit can be used only for necessary cleaning and repairs for which a tenant is responsible and for any unpaid rent.
It also sets a dollar limit of twice the monthly rent for an unfurnished unit and up to three times the rent for a furnished unit.
Because security deposit money can be used for unpaid rent, there is no need to collect a separate deposit labeled “last month’s rent.”
Dishwasher Doesn’t Constitute Furniture
Q: The new owner of my apartment complex has no previous rental experience. He says that since my apartment has a dishwasher, he can increase my security deposit to the amount allowed for a “furnished” unit, which is three times the monthly rent.
Ever since I moved in two years ago, the dishwasher was the only piece of furniture or appliance that my landlord provided. I don’t think this unit can be considered furnished. Am I right?
A: Yes. In general, “furnished” refers to basic furniture required to reside in a unit, such as a bed in each bedroom, a couch or chairs for the living area, a dining table with chairs, a refrigerator and a stove.
The fact that a rental unit has a dishwasher, or any other appliance, would not qualify it as furnished. Therefore, a security deposit greater than two times the monthly rent would be a violation of the code.
Because your property owner is new at being a landlord, you can suggest that he talk with the local housing program, managers of other complexes or the local apartment owners association in your area for information about the distinction between furnished and unfurnished apartments.
This column is prepared by Project Sentinel, a rental housing mediation service in Sunnyvale, Calif. Questions may be sent to 1055 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, Suite 3, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 but cannot be answered individually.
For housing discrimination questions, complaints or help, call the state Department of Fair Housing and Employment at (800) 233-3212 or the Fair Housing Council, Fair Housing Institute or Fair Housing Foundation office in your area:
Bellflower: (888) 777-4087
Carson: (888) 777-4087
El Monte: (626) 579-6868
Hawthorne: (888) 777-4087
Lancaster: (888) 777-4087
Long Beach: (562) 901-0808
Pasadena: (626) 791-0211
Redondo Beach: (888) 777-4087
San Fernando Valley: (818) 373-1185
South-Central Los Angeles: (213) 295-3302.
Westside Los Angeles: (310) 474-1667
Orange County: (714) 569-0828
San Bernardino County: (909) 884-8056
San Diego County: (619) 699-5888
Ventura County: (805) 385-7288
