Here's an idea!!!!

Is it possible to record a deed restriction on your own property that states "no animals of any kind are to be kept on the property"?

Mine personal residence for example says: no foul or livestock are to be raised upon the land.

When someone says I have this pet or that pet or an ESA, you could say, "Oh, I'm sorry it's in the deed that no animals are to be kept on the land."

Now I know you can't have deed restrictions for things expressed in Fair housing. That's obvious.

I'm talking about animals

I have no interest in doing this and most ESA folks are easily screened out anyway.

Generally speaking, this kind of restriction is imposed on an entire parcel that is being subdivided, for the benefit of all the sub-parcels. So the entire community is free of fowl or glue factories or whatever.

I have no idea what a court would do if faced with a conflict between the Fair Housing/ADA zealots and a deed restriction.

I just knew that Mike45 would have a quick legal answer for us.

thanks, Mike!

If examined "at law' could it be deemed "against public policy"?

I messed up and put my initial answer on an unrelated topic

Right Mike! Especially if you recorded that restriction at the time of purchase before anything was built or remodeled and placed on the market for rent. It has a proveable timeline that was there at the inception of ownership.

It would be interesting to see where that line was drawn. If I understand deed restrictions correctly, you really can restrict anything (Fair Housing aside).

Siding colors, driveway materials, etc..

As far as I know, deed restrictions literally are the "law of the land" governing specific parcels.

I'm interested to hear what folks think about this.

Right Ken. I know there used to be deed restrictions for the things like race. Certain types of animals are restricted often.

Boy I'd like to test this theory! Haha.

I think you will find that federal law is going to supercede. your deed restriction.

Yes, the deed can restrict livestock and the number of pets, but an emotional support animal is nether a pet nor livestock.

Deed Restrictions are important if you want to keep junk cars/junk yard from being created on the property.

A subdivision will have certain restrictions HOWEVER a deed restriction will pertain to a property. It may in an area that does not have a strict zoning so the deed restriction will rule that property.

Don of PA has a good point who has the jurisdiction to remove the deed restriction. The person who originated the restriction is deceased and now does the heirs have the ability to remove the restrictions. However some deed restrictions may be important to let run with the deed.

NE of PA its an excellent idea and may be worth asking a real estate attorney at a landlord association meeting.

Restriction on animals includes both farm and domestic animals are not permitted on the property or in the premises. What about birds? Reptiles? Especially Snakes?

What about smoke free premises???

NE of PA, create verbage for the animal restriction include it in your deeds. Your LLC owned properties could be sold to another LLC with the new deed restrictions.

Depending on the cost factor to move your properties from one LLC to the other LLC then incorporate the deed restrictions into the new deeds.

NE,

Great idea! Keep thinking!

I don’t think it would stand uo because the animal law is about REASONABLE ACCOMODATION.

But keep trying!

The one thing I worry about deed restrictions is.. we don't know what the future will bring and that restriction may be very burdensome in the future.

I echo Brad's "nice try".... I too often try to think of way around silly laws.

However, in this case I don't see the point. A deed restriction would likely have to include all of whatever type of category of animal. ALL dogs. ALL cats, etc. What you're basically creating is a "no pets" property. I wouldn't want to limit myself from charging pet fees/rents on other tenant.

To bypass the restrictions, an applicant could get an unusual animal that isn't listed on the deed: goats, pigs, mini-horse, pony, chickens, skunks, etc. Would a person be able to come up with a comprehensive enough definition to restrict all critters and not make it look to a judge like the intention is to skirt federal law? Treading on thin ice. I'd rather let someone else test that theory in court on their dime first.

LindaJ, that's for sure. I know to change the deed restriction, it either needs a majority or unanimous vote for a development.

In my case, I have chickens. There's a deed restriction against them.

My immediate neighbors on all sides know about them and don't care at all.

It's also a 60 year old restriction at this point. Antiquated? Even city councils are allowing them these days.

Guess who's joining the ESA crowd if anyone says anything?

This guy!

They are emotional support chickens that lay emotional support eggs!

I'll test the ESA theory from the other side and report back.

Right Sid, I don't think it will really work, but was more food for thought.

You could call it the Noah's Ark restriction. Any animal on Noah's ark is prohibited from residing on this land. I'd say that's a pretty comprehensive list.

I don't think it would work. If you put the deed restriction yourself, you caused the issue and you are the one to enforce the deed restriction, so it would seem like a court would find it unreasonable for you to deny based on a restriction you put in place yourself. If the deed restriction came from a previous owner, I think you could have a case similar to the insurance restrictions, it would be unreasonable for you to violate the deed restriction and lose the property, but you have to check with the person the placed the restriction and get them to state they will not allow the ESA, then the feds would go after them instead of you.

I think a simple way to answer this question is with another:

Could you write up a deed restriction that says "no hispanics of any kind are to be allowed on the property"? How about "no females of any kind are to be allowed on the property"? That work?

They don't work. For the same reason. It would be illegal discrimination that violates federal law.

- John...

Also, it's funny that you flat you state that you know you can't have deed restrictions for things that violate Fair Housing and that is obvious -- but then ask if you can add one that would basically violate Fair Housing. ;)

- John..

Who will enforce the restrictions? Not the criminal justice system. Seems to me that a civil suit would be filed by a person with "standing". So such a person would need to supply the money for the action. But the loser in court probably would have to pay all the costs.

Technical is what matters when it comes to legalities. :)

An animal is not a protected class, but a disabled person is. That is who you'd be discriminating against, of course. I still don't see how this would possibly get around that.

- John...

Yes Robin. That's what I'm thinking.

I'm not looking to discriminate against anyone with actual needs of a service animal. One thing I think that 95% of us can agree on is that this whole ESA thing for the most part is a scam. So how do we move forward?

Great idea NE.......got me thinking to of a new deed restriction

NO IDIOTS PERMITTED.