0

I own my home. But I rent the land via a mobile home community. Our lease with the Lot states we can have dogs. We have 2 approved dogs. While we're renovating our home our contractor friend stayed the weekend to help us with our bathroom. He has 2 dogs. When the property manager found out she threatened to evict me within 24 hours... her reason is that I only have 2 approved dogs on my lease and even if they're not my dogs when I have company over they became my dogs and I exceeded the limit that I'm allowed. Her words exactly.

This doesnt seem legal. Per my conversation with her when we moved in my wife asked if dog sitting is permitted because our kids have dogs and we often watched them when they go on vacation and she said it was fine. But if we were to own any more dogs they would have to approved first.

What can I do? Because I feel like shes overracting.

Improve this question
3
  • What state is this in?
    – David Reed
    Apr 20 '20 at 10:34
  • Utah... just outside Colorado
    – Jon Marker
    Apr 20 '20 at 16:07
  • 1
    My advice would be to try and avoid allowing your friends to bring their animals over. Practically speaking, its best to pick your battles with landlords. If your contract has a provision that states residents require prior approval of all pets than it is likely to stand up in court unless Utah law specifically prohibits those type of agreements being made in mobile home parks.
    – David Reed
    Apr 21 '20 at 1:33
1

Utah law regarding mobile home park tenancies is here. 57-16-4(1) says that

A mobile home park or its agents may not terminate a lease or rental agreement upon any ground other than as specified in this chapter.

57-16-4.1 spells out the "meeting" requirements regarding dispute-resolution, that is, a landlord can't just boot you out.

If a mobile home park determines that a resident has failed to comply with a mobile home park rule, the mobile home park may not terminate the lease agreement or commence legal proceedings without first giving a written notice of noncompliance to the resident.

followed by a bunch of procedural stuff regarding written notice, dispute-resolution meeting. 57-16-5 enumerates the legal causes for termination, such as failure to repair the external structure for 60 days, sustained violation for 7 days of rules after written notice, bad behavior in the form of committing a crime against another park resident, illegal drugs, or distribution of alcohol to minors, non-payment and a few other things, none of which includes "having a guest with a dog".

There must actually be a rule against guests having dogs, for there to be a violation of said rule, and then the landlord has to give notice to cure which is ignored for 7 days, for there to be a legal basis for eviction. And then, as with ordinary tenancies, you have to take the matter to the courts to bring about the eviction.

So yes, such an attempted eviction would not be legal.

Improve this answer
0

Per my conversation with her when we moved in my wife asked if dog sitting is permitted because our kids have dogs and we often watched them when they go on vacation and she said it was fine. But if we were to own any more dogs they would have to approved first.

Verbal contracts are binding; it's best to have written contracts in order to solve disputes using the evidence of the written contract, but verbal contracts are contracts. You can try explaining that to the property manager.

Read your written lease and see if the stipulation allowing dog sitting is included. And also see if the lease states what is required for a 24 hr. eviction. The possibility of a 24 hr. eviction will vary, depending on local and state laws.

If needed - if the dispute continues or if you are served an eviction notice - Google for free or low cost renters legal aid groups in your area.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    They weren't really dog sitting in this instance, tho, were they? The dogs owner was also staying over, so the aforementioned agreement about dog sitting might not apply.
    – user28517
    Apr 20 '20 at 5:36
  • @Moo true, but they also were not owning the extra 2 dogs...
    – Trish
    Sep 17 '20 at 8:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.