Does a landlord legally have to charge me pet rent, if they charge for other pets? Recently I inquired to my landlord about getting some Guinea Pigs. He wanted to charge me $25/month for the guinea pigs, when further pressed about why I needed to pay a charge (Guinea Pigs generally stay in there cage and wouldn't cause much damage) I was told they were legally required to charge for any pets, because they charge for dogs and that if they didn't it would be considered discrimination. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't see how would possibly be considered discrimination. I do understand that regardless he can charge whatever he wants for pets. I'm just wondering if this is really a valid reason. As for what the lease says about pets, under tenant obligations: Not to keep in or about any pets unless specifically authorized as a special condition into this Rental Agreement. So I would need to sign an updated lease in order for this to happen, which makes sense. I did do a bit of googling and could not find anything related to pets or discrimination beyond this: In Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 106.50(2r)(bm) includes specific rules about animals assisting persons with vision, hearing or mobility disabilities. It is illegal for an owner or property manager to refuse to rent to a tenant, evict the tenant, require extra compensation or harass a tenant because he or she keeps an animal that is specially trained to lead or assist a tenant with impaired vision, hearing or mobility... Which does not apply to me.
I do not believe that there is any such law, although it is conceivable that the landlord is confused about what laws, generally called &quot;non-discrimination laws&quot; actually require. It may be wise policy for the landlord to treat everyone who owns a pet in the complex to pay pet rent, and it may be not worth the expense to the landlord to pay an attorney to revise his lease for your benefit to afford you the privilege of paying him less rent that he would have charged you otherwise. But the law does not actually require the landlord to do so.
Firstly, your "apartment" doesn't prohibit anything; Your tenancy contract does. A terminology nitpick, but one that can shed some light on what is actually happening. TLDR: Your right to bear arms isn't being infringed, its being traded away. An unreasonable trade may be invalidated by the courts. Firearms restrictions are far less likely to be voided than speech content limitations. Yes, you have the right to bear arms(whatever exact meaning of that is). You also have the right to voluntarily agree to a binding agreement limiting that right, in exchange for a consideration. Compare a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). You have the right to freedom in your speech: you also have the right to agree to binding limits on your freedom of speech, in return for consideration (such as money or access to information). Every contract is structured in the same general way: Party A agrees to do or avoid doing certain things, in exchange for Party B agreeing to do or avoid doing certain things. So, in essence, what the apartment contract says is, that you agree to do or not do some things (including paying rent), in return for your landlord temporarily granting you some rights(such as the right to reside(generally exclusive), the right to control the space, etc. ), and imposing some obligations on themselves (which vary from place to place). In your case, one of the things that you are trading is a limitation on your right to bear arms(note that you can still bear arms, just not on the property in question). Now one thing to note is that courts have the power to enforce contracts; they also have the power to void contracts, in part or in full, if they are illegal or "unconscionable". In general, restricting (the content of) speech is not reasonable (e.g. having a general noise level restriction is reasonable), so is more likely to be struck down than one restricting firearms on the rented property.
At common law, a tenant is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property. This means that the owner can only interact with the tenant as spelled out in the lease or in an emergency situation. First, calmly and quietly write down a list of your grievances. Then check your lease to see what the landlord is entitled to do. Cross off any grievances that are permitted by the lease. Take this and the lease to your solicitor and pay him to write a letter to your agent advising them of your grievances and asking that they stop. Without knowing where you are, we do not know what additional rights and dispute resolution procedures are available in your jurisdiction. Very few jurisdictions still rely entirely on common law as real estate is one of the most highly government regulated areas of life wherever you are. Your solicitor will know and, for less that a week's rent will give you solid advice.
The applicable law is here. Any animal that crosses its owner's property line in the slightest must be restrained. Chicago law also requires fences to be physical fences, not electronic ones. So you can report the situation to the police. This may or may not result in a fine for the owner: that's at the discretion of the city. From a legal perspective, reporting violations to the police and to animal control is almost all you can do. There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that the police will investigate; but if that is not satisfactory, there are political solutions involving your alderman. Theoretically, you could sue the owner, but that would be expensive and probably less effective compared to reporting the violation.
It is usual for a lease to specify for what purposes and on what notice the landlord is entitled to access. Often there is a provision allowing the landlord access on no notice in an &quot;emergency&quot; which is often not specifically defined. Access for purposes of repair, and for purposes of inspection may be on 24 hours notice, or 48 hours, or some other period, or on &quot;reasonable notice&quot; with no specific period specified. Access for a reasonable purpose (such as inspection) on reasonable notice that does not actually inconvenience the tenant, and that is not demanded with unreasonable frequency will probably not constitute such a breach as to justify ending the tenancy, and may well not justify sizable damages in the absence of other breaches. Much will depend on the wording of the lease or rental agreement, and on the practice of the local courts. One might well ask oneself &quot;what actual harm will an inspection with insufficient notice do me&quot; because a court might ask a similar question if an action is brought. If the inspection does cause a problem, then that should be addressed.
One path would be to get compliance, by demonstrating that it is legally required. The best evidence that he is legally required to wear a mask is this recent mandate from the Department of Public Health. However, I cannot find a corresponding executive order, which may be in a generic form empowering CDPH to issue orders. Any imposition of penalties for violation must be publicly announced and rest on legislative authority. The mandate is not generally enforced, except in a few cases regarding bars and restaurants. There are various persuasive avenues that you could pursue, such as asking CDPH to come talk to him (unlikely, but you could try), complaining to the property owner, appealing to local social media to apply pressure (possibly putting yourself at legal risk for defamation, if you make a false statement). There are two more involved legal actions to contemplate. One is to terminate the lease and move elsewhere. This would likely result in an action to collect the remainder of the rent, but the strategy would be to argue that the manager has interfered with your private enjoyment of the premise. A second, highly improbable, is to sue the manager and get an enforceable court order requiring him to wear a mask. Courts have a prejudice against ordering people to take actions when other options exist (terminating the lease, monetary compensation). It could be an interesting but expensive test case to see if you could get a judge to order the manager to wear a mask. So yes they are obligated to wear masks, but legal enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
According to This official FAQ page: Q25. When can service animals be excluded? A. The ADA does not require covered entities to modify policies, practices, or procedures if it would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the goods, services, programs, or activities provided to the public. Nor does it overrule legitimate safety requirements. If admitting service animals would fundamentally alter the nature of a service or program, service animals may be prohibited. In addition, if a particular service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, or if it is not housebroken, that animal may be excluded. Q26. When might a service dog's presence fundamentally alter the nature of a service or program provided to the public? A. In most settings, the presence of a service animal will not result in a fundamental alteration. However, there are some exceptions. For example, at a boarding school, service animals could be restricted from a specific area of a dormitory reserved specifically for students with allergies to dog dander. At a zoo, service animals can be restricted from areas where the animals on display are the natural prey or natural predators of dogs, where the presence of a dog would be disruptive, causing the displayed animals to behave aggressively or become agitated. They cannot be restricted from other areas of the zoo. This seems to indicate that the zoo exception exists because it would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the zoo. I don't think that it would “fundamentally alter” the nature of a store with a mascot cat for the cat to be temporarily restricted to the upstairs living quarters or other area away from the customer areas where a service dog must be permitted to accompany a disabled customer. In the FAQ document Service Animals under the ADA from the Great Lakes ADA center, on page 7, it is said that: In General Covered entities must modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability in any area open to the general public, unless the entity can demonstrate (1) that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the entity’s goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, (2) the safe operation of the entity would be jeopardized, or (3) such modifications would result in an undue financial or administrative burden. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7), 35.136, 35.150 (a)(3), 35.164, 36.301(b), 36.302 (c)(1), and 36.303(a). DOJ commentary suggests that Congress intended the ADA to allow service animals the “broadest feasible access” to public accommodations and public entities and to avoid unnecessarily separating service animals from from their owners. 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. C. Covered entities that have blanket policies or practices that exclude service animals may be subjected to court orders or settlement agreements requiring modification of the relevant policy or practice. On pages 8-9 of the same document it is said that: It is the entity’s burden to allege and prove the existence of a fundamental alteration. The outcome of such defense will depend on the distinct facts of each case. The document cites Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir.2004), in which (according to the document) an attempt to exclude a service dog which had previously barked during musical concerts was not allowed, and a "fundamental alteration" defense was denied at both the distinct and circuit court levels. The Great Lakes document also cited Johnson v. Gambrinus Company/Spoetzel Brewery, 116 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1997), in which a brewery attempted to exclude a service dog for a tour open to the public, Citing FDA regulations in support of a "no animals" policy, and argued that to admit animals would constitute a "fundamental change". The Fifth Circuit ruled that the brewery must modify its policy, and awarded damages under a parallel state law. This seems to confirm that the "zoo exception" is limited to a situation where the animals on display are a "fundamental" part of the operation of the facility, as is surely the case with a zoo, but would not be the case in a store as described in the question. I have not found any case law directly on point. If the issue has been in court, it probably has not been taken to the appeals court level where opinions are published.
Is this charge legal in Georgia? No. It seems unlawful. First, it appears that the landlord was negligent and failed to mitigate damages. Since in general utilities are billed monthly, it is unreasonable for the landlord to have waited this long for a $2 charge that occurred on the first day of your tenancy. Second, legislation typically sets a deadline for a landlord to send a former tenant an itemized bill to cover for damages other than normal tear and wear. According to O.C.G.A. § 44-7-34(a), that deadline in Georgia is 30 days. Whereas the $2 charge is right (at least from a moral standpoint, as you mention), the $50 surcharge is devoid of merit.