Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in Arizona
Had a no-pet clause, but renter kept pets
I am a landlord. I have a property manager who handles collections, inspections, and legal paperwork. The lease clearly stated that ''no pets shall be kept at this property for full duration of this lease.'' The owner had a dog, but denies having the dog. After the renter vacated at the end of his lease, I spent several hours picking up doggy mess and discovered that the sprinkler system heads were chewed off by the dog. I have pictures of all proof (yes, ALL proof), but the renter is denying having a dog. He is requesting his full $1000 deposit be returned, but I say he violated the no-pet clause. So: am I obligated to return his full deposit? If he denies having a dog, but I have proof to the contrary, can he win in small claims court? What is extent of--name removed--obligation?
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Had a no-pet clause, but renter kept pets
WHo cares who chewed off the sprinkler heads?
Damage is damage, and THAT is not reasonable wear & tear.
Call or e-mail for further assistance.
I have been a landlord for 25 years.
Related Questions & Answers
-
I think my landlord is charging unfair late fees. Do you? In June I made an... Asked 11/05/05, 5:49 pm in United States Arizona Landlord & Tenants
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
