E-Renter News

A Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a landlord was not responsible for injuries suffered by a child who was bitten by a pit bull on his property. The court decided that the landlord had no knowledge of the dog’s propensity to be dangerous.

The case started in June 2008, when a pit bull bit a 10-year-old boy on the nose while on the premises owned by landlord Robert Miller. The girlfriend of Miller’s tenant owned the dog. The child’s parents sued the tenant, the girlfriend and the landlord.

The mother argued that the dog had dangerous propensities and the landlord was liable for damages, because he knew or should have known about them, and failed to remove the dog from the premises or warn of its presence.

The landlord, who in turn sued his tenant, his girlfriend and the boy’s grandparents (who brought him to see the dog), denied that he permitted the tenant or the girlfriend to keep the dog on the premises. He also denied he ever had knowledge of the dog’s alleged dangerous propensities.

A court found in the landlord’s favor in December 2010. The boy’s mother appealed and the Superior Court upheld the previous ruling. The judges on the panel agreed that although there was an issue about whether or not the dog had dangerous propensities, the plaintiff did not produce evidence that the landlord had actual knowledge of them.

The court ruled that “actual knowledge of a dog’s dangerous propensities is required before a duty is imposed upon a landlord to protect against or remove an animal housed on a rental property.”

In Dunwoody, Georgia, a judge rejected a motion from landlords who sought to have a dog-bite case against them dismissed. Instead, a lawsuit brought by the parents of two children bitten by a pit bull will go to a jury trial—and could set a precedent in the state.

The parents also sued the dog’s owners, who used to live in the other half of a duplex owned by the landlords. The case stems from an attack by the dog when their son was four and their daughter was nine years old. The dog first attacked the boy and then ihs sister, who tried to help him. Their mother heard screams, and found the dog holding the little boy by his shoulder, shaking him side to side.

In court documents, the landlords said that they knew nothing about a so-called vicious dog staying with their tenants. They contend the incident is the fault of the parents and the dog’s owners. The parents assert they repeatedly complained to the landlords about the dog in question, as well as another pit bull owned by their neighbors. Another neighbor said she and others also complained about the dogs, and that she helped the mother of the children file a complaint with animal control.

The parents’ attorney said that the landlords, as well as the owners of the dog, have a responsibility in this case. “The landlords…have a duty to ensure that common areas…are, in fact, safe for use,” he said. He pointed out that the leases with both tenants specified dogs were not allowed; yet the clause was not enforced.

The attorney stated further than the landlords had heard complaints from the tenants for 10 months before the incident and that he hopes the case will send a “strong message to other landlords” that they will be “held responsible for keeping their tenants safe, including safe from the attacks by vicious animals owned by their tenants.”

A date has not yet been set for the trial, but we’ll keep you posted as the case progresses.

Last week, Maryland’s highest court ruled that owners of pit bulls or mixed breed pit bulls, as well as landlords who allow tenants to own such dogs, are liable for damages resulting from an attack by these dogs. In modifying an existing law, the court ruled that it is no longer necessary to prove that a pit bull is dangerous. The presence of the animal on a property is enough to establish a case for damages.

The case began in 2007, when a 10-year-old boy was severely injured by a pit bull. He spent 17 days in ICU and a year in rehabilitation. His parents filed a suit against the dog’s owners, seeking monetary damages. They declared bankruptcy. The parents then sued the dog owners’ landlord.

During the trial, the court ruled there was insufficient evidence that the landlord was aware of the dog’s vicious nature. In 2011, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The landlord’s insurance company appealed to The Court of Appeals of Maryland, which upheld that decision and further ruled that “pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.” The court also reduced the standards necessary to hold “owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls.” This means landlords.

This ruling means that whether or not a dog has a history of being dangerous or ever showed any signs of viciousness, the owner and/or landlord who know a dog is part or full pit bull are liable for its actions. In the past, a victim of a dog attack had to prove the owner or landlord knew the dog was dangerous.

Will landlords in Maryland be adding “no pit bull or pit bull mix” clauses to their leases as a result of this ruling? Do they have a choice? Opponents of the ruling worry that pit bull owners will find it more difficult to find housing. Considering the dogs are banned outright in many municipalities, it’s the reality they must face. This ruling doesn’t outlaw pit bulls; it simply makes the owner and landlord financially responsible for injuries people suffer as a result of attacks by them.

The landlord of an apartment complex has been posting on his website the names of tenants who violate house rules. Whether they are accused of parking illegally, making too much noise, or paying rent late, he maintains that publicly calling out problem tenants is a great way to encourage compliance and make the property more pleasant for everyone.

The question is, is it legal?

Well, that depends on where you live, according to “Rent it Right.” Has the landlord committed a crime by posting tenants’ names on a website? Perhaps, if they plead harassment, which means the landlord must intend to cause emotional distress, or to annoy, provoke or threaten the victim. In this case, the landlord’s actions may be interpreted as simply intending to discourage similar behavior.

Defamation is another possible claim that may not hold water—because it only applies to untrue statements. If it’s true, the landlord would probably not be liable for charges of defamation.

Of course, if prospective tenants see “the list” they may not be compelled to sign a lease with this landlord. Then again, if they plan to pay the rent late, make too much noise or park wherever they want, that may be just what he intended.

Boston city officials have had enough of a problem multifamily property, where police had been dispatched 57 times in the past year for assorted crimes, ranging from drug dealing to prostitution. In an effort to embarrass the property owner, the city posted a lighted flashing road sign, similar to those warning drivers of construction, outside the building. The sign reads, “Designated Problem Property.”

A spokesperson for mayor Tomas Menino said he would continue to pressure the property owner until he responds to demands to clean up his properties, saying “they shouldn’t be able to make money in our city if they aren’t going to be good neighbors.”

The landlord of the property owes more than $2,000 in fines and owns another “problem property” as well, according to officials. The landlord says he’s trying to evict tenants, but it takes time to gather the evidence.

There is no word on how long the sign will light up the street and call attention to the property. The mayor started a task force last year to crack down on drug dens and other nuisance properties; so far, 16 houses are on the list.

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina has teamed up with the University of North Carolina’s Conflict Studies and Dispute Resolution Program to help landlords and tenants resolve disputes through mediation.

The free, voluntary program is intended to serve as an alternative to litigation, by helping landlords and tenants communicate more effectively, to solve issues such as security deposit disputes, noise and property damage complaints and repairs. To take advantage of the program, both parties must agree to come together and discuss the issues with a professional mediator, who works to help them define and clarify the problem, facilitate communication and come to a mutually acceptable solution.

Mediation is a popular method of dispute resolution; it is often used in divorce cases, business disputes and other potentially tense legal situations. Mediators are trained to remain neutral, reduce barriers to communication, and ensure that both parties to a dispute are heard. The ultimate resolution of a problem is up to the opposing parties, not the mediator.

The Greensboro program aims to improve long-term landlord-tenant relationships. It’s free, confidential, and can be accessed by either landlords or tenants.

The Landlord-Tenant Dispute program has the potential to save landlords a whole lot of time, expense and aggravation. It’s a smart alternative to going to court over tenant disputes. Does your community have a similar program? Maybe it should!

A new landlord-tenant bill passed in the Wisconsin state Senate today, and may make it to the governor’s desk this week, despite concerns from some Democrats, who said it opens the door for some landlords to “mistreat” tenants.

The bill changes a state law that prohibits local governments from enacting a moratorium on evictions. One opposing lawmaker said it “would even allow people to be evicted on Christmas.” The Legislature failed to add an amendment disallowing evictions on holidays.

The bill also allows landlords to dispose of an evicted tenant’s property immediately, and to continue evictions against tenants who have paid past-due rents. Opponents say these aspects of the proposed law prove it’s not in the best interest of consumers. Supporters did not speak about the bill in today’s session.

One legislator, who is a former landlord, spoke against the bill, saying it “opens the doors to business people who are tempted to rip off their tenants because they can get away with it.”

The bill now goes to the Assembly, who may act on it during the final day of the current legislative session.

When is a tenant justified in breaking a lease? Usually, it’s because of a default by the landlord, like broken water pipes that go unrepaired, lack of sufficient heat, or refusal to correct safety issues.

But what about a situation that is neither the tenant’s nor the landlord’s fault? In a recent case, a landlord received notice that a tenant would be moving out before the lease was up, due to her fear of her estranged husband. The tenant had obtained a restraining order, but wanted to put some distance between herself and the perpetrator.

The landlord insisted the tenant would be responsible for rent until he found a new tenant and signed a new lease. But, depending on where his rental property lies, he may be in violation of the law. Certain states have recognized that victims of domestic violence have a valid reason to break a lease, and that landlords must dismiss them from responsibility for future rent due to the end of the lease period.

Under these newer laws, tenants may be required to document any abuse and give the landlord timely notice of vacating the rental property.

It’s always a good idea to check out the laws covering tenant rights in your state and city. Things change, and you don’t want to find yourself proceeding in the wrong direction.

Like many municipalities, Connecticut’s cities and towns are experiencing difficulty in balancing their budgets. But one mandate intended to provide some relief is drawing quite a response from landlords and the Connecticut Association of Relators. Governor Dannel Malloy’s idea is to relieve the towns and cities that pay to store the possessions of tenants evicted by court order, by passing those costs on to landlords.

In Bridgeport, Conn., the mayor indicated the city could save $100,000 in storage fees each year. The executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said the mandate places municipalities in the middle of disputes between landlords and tenants. The governor’s secretary of the Office of Policy and Management explained the point of the legislation is to “provide some solid monetary relief” for Connecticut’s towns and cities by shifting the “cost from local governments onto landlords.”

The bill allows cities and towns to seek reimbursement from landlords for up to 15 days of storage fees, plus an additional 15 days’ worth if the tenant asks for an extension.

When a landlord is forced to evict a tenant, usually because of a broken lease, he or she will have already incurred expenses in lost rent or damages, along with attorney’s fees and court costs. Requiring a landlord to pay for storing an evicted tenant’s belongings seems to add insult to injury.

Back in December, we reported on a Manhattan landlord who has had enough of New York City’s rent stabilization laws, which prevented him from raising the rent on a property his family has owned for 40 years – with three tenants who have lived there for 30 years each.

The laws keep half the rents in the city artificially low. Many say they have also kept the supply and quality of rental housing low. James Harmon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case that the practice should be prohibited under the Constitution. Two lower courts refused.

Harmon’s case is based on a clause in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

The Supreme Court has expressed an interest in the case, by asking New York State and the city of New York to respond to his argument. However, the Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case.