I think the first problem is that this is aimed at pit bulls in rental housing. ADA specifically forbids any discrimination against any breed of dog. Since the obvious intent is apparent to everyone, first time someone tries to use it, the courts are going to throw the law out as it applies to any penalties to the tenant.
Second problem is you’re thinking that companion animals have to do much of anything at all. All that’s required is a doctor’s note saying the animal might make the person feel more comfortable. It doesn’t even require the doctor to identify any disability or psychological issue which would be addressed aside from ‘comfort.’
Nor does the federal laws require the doctor to actually see the person in question to provide the note - hence why so many websites offer it for a fee. (Also there’s no limitations in federal law for the number of animals to be covered by such a note either.)
All this law will accomplish is opening a whole bunch of people to liability in lawsuits when they try to unilaterally enforce the provisions and possibly leave a property owner on the hook for any lawsuits over bites with zero liability being covered by the insurance companies.
The fix for this law is a) change ADA to permit requiring a demonstration of the service performed rather than simply a description of what service a dog will do, and b) permitting one companion animal which aids in existing in person treatment for a patient (thus nuking all the internet doctor’s note scams.) Both are actions which have to be taken at the federal level.
As for Oklahoma law, there’s little they can really do to protect landlords - the property itself is tasty security for any lawsuits. This might discourage a couple lawyers; I’m sure insurance companies are applauding the blanket release from liability which they’ll enjoy under this.
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the complete situation was perpetrated at the federal level for just this scenario.
I do agree that it can only be “repaired” at the federal level, - but only if one agrees that federal law should trump state law in this case.
I do not have enough information to have an opinion on this item at this time. Nor do I know how it will play out. It may very well be an unenforceable law. But I must applaud the effort.
IF insurance companies can refuse to INSURE such dogs-—why do I have to rent to people with such dogs?
The renter has no capital investment into the property & I can be sued until I lose the property.
This is just one of the reasons I sold my rent house and had it moved away. I don’t see how anyone stands the risk of a renter. The neighbor kid rented a little house against my recommendations not to. He just told me the renters are gone but he got stiffed with about $1,700 in water, electric and back rent. This is the second time that has happened to him. First time was his preacher’s kid.
Another guy bought a trailer and fixed it up to rent. I tried to buy it so I could move it off as well before he did the work on it. He scoffed saying he had experience with renters and knew how to manage them. Not. The place became a cesspool in less than four months. I double stacked round bales along the fence and planted Morning Glory along them. I can’t see the place now and they can’t see me either. It took about 300 bales and a lot of work to block them out of my sight.
Rent houses have been a losing proposition for me between repairs and deadbeats. The Morning Glory is growing well and will cover the bales by the end of summer and I’ve offered to bull doze the neighbor kid’s old house for him since it really does not amount to much but a liability and taxes.