Updated 12-17-2012
Caution to advertising landlords: pets are simply allowed or prohibited. No picking and choosing.
Civil Code §1942.7
Added by S.B. No. 1229
Effective date: January 1, 2013
A landlord allowing tenant pets may not:
- favor declawed or devocalized animals in any advertisement;
- refuse to rent or negotiate for rent to a tenant because their pet has not been declawed or devocalized; or
- require tenants’ pets to be declawed or devocalized as a condition of renting the property.
A landlord who violates these rules is subject to up to $1,000 for each violation.
Editor’s note — Although landlords may not favor declawed or devocalized pets, they may still protect against property damage or noise by including a lease provision barring specific pet behavior or prohibiting pets altogether.
Dear Richard:
Thank you for bringing this ambiguity to our attention. We have updated the article to clarify a landlord’s options regarding tenant pets.
Although I agree that declawing is bad and neutering is good, I’m not sure about devocalizing. My only experience was with a couple of miniature collies who barked continuously for hours. After the owner had them devocalized, they seemed exactly the same, still barking continuously for hours, but at 1/10th the volume.
However, despite my preference for less government regulation, I think preventing the subject ads is beneficial in that if those types of ads became commonplace, more people would feel justified to have the objectionable operations performed.
Although the Editor’s note seems to suggest that owners that allow pets must therefore accept any resulting obnoxious pet behavior, I do not read the law as so stating. Just because an owner may not “require tenants’ pets to be declawed or devocalized as a condition of renting the property.” would NOT nullify a lease term regarding pet damage or excessive noise. Therefore, an owner should still be able to EVICT a tenant because of their pets’ unacceptable behavior.
First Tuesday should reprint the article clarifying this point in case some readers have gotten the wrong impression and changed their pet policy thinking that there will be no solution to problem pets. Pet friendly rentals need to be INCREASED, not decreased.
Well, these are pretty cruel and unusual things to do to animals. Just barbaric. The headlines had me worried because I thought it meant you couldn’t require pets to be NEUTERED! But, fortunately, not so. I suggest this article be renamed. “Altered” pets used to mean neutered, fixed, spayed, etc. This is a good thing. I wish the state would require landlords to accept ONE neutered pet as most people who get their pets neutered generally treat those animals as their children. One tragedy of the great recession is that people who lost houses moved into apartments that didn’t permit pets, and those pets are now roaming the streets, looking for handouts (or a home, if they are lucky) from people like me!