You can have it, but now you can't

[bigd43606]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

A good family friend moved into an apartment complex with his large dog. The lease specifically stated no large dogs. He was very upfront with the property manager about it and she told him it was not a problem. There was nothing in writing. (stupid I know) But they did know the dog was there the whole time. Fast forward 5 months, the manager gets fired. A new one comes in and starts enforcing the lease. A dozen tenants in the building are given the option of get rid of the dog or get evicted. So he felt he had no choice but to place it in a shelter a few weeks ago as he couldn't get out of the lease. He is very distraught as this dog was his family. Does he have any options with the apartment, if he wanted to bring the dog back.

How about if he could find the fired manager and get a written affidaved stating she allowed it verbally? Any options would be appreciated

Thanks,

Don

 

[latigo]

Just a random thought, but since the manager is not willing to honor the verbal agreement to waive the lease restriction or agree to cancel the lease, why not put the dog back in the apartment and the ball in the manager’s court?

Then the dog either stays put or the manager requests both of you to leave.

 

[Zigner]

Just a random thought, but since the manager is not willing to honor the verbal agreement to waive the lease restriction or agree to cancel the lease, why not put the dog back in the apartment and the ball in the manager’s court?

Then the dog either stays put or the manager requests both of you to leave.

OP's already stated that the choice was to get rid of the dog or to get evicted. Your advice is bad, as you are advising them to get themselves evicted.

 

[bigd43606]

This friend is on unemployment and does not want to have an eviction in his names. He has enough problems already.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

It's fairly clear that the new manager is going to enforce the provisions in the lease (after all, a dozen other tenants were given the same option of getting rid of their dogs or face eviction).

Getting a written letter from the previous manager would be useless.

Gail

 

[latigo]

Zigner:

It seems we are placing a different interpretation on the post.

My understanding is that if the tenant is not allowed to harbor his dog, then he wants to annul the lease on the grounds that the restriction was waived at the time he signed the lease.

So he felt he had no choice but to place it in a shelter a few weeks ago as he couldn't get out of the lease. /QUOTE]

Apparently the new guy will neither acknowledge the original deal nor allow the tenant out of the lease.

If the presence of the dog is a breach of a condition of the letting and he returns the dog, what options does the landlord have other than to waive the restriction, shoot the animal or terminate the lease?

 

[Who's Liable?]

Apparently the new guy will neither acknowledge the original deal nor allow the tenant out of the lease.

New manager is ENFORCING the terms of the lease. Either REMOVE The dog OR be evicted.

If the presence of the dog is a breach of a condition of the letting and he returns the dog, what options does the landlord have other than to waive the restriction, shoot the animal or terminate the lease?

The new manager will TERMINATE the lease based upon the tenant violating the terms. Manager can than throw all kinds of charges at the OP, early termination, advertising, etc...

 

[latigo]

Besides, there is an established line of competent authority that finds an exception to the parole evidence rule that would otherwise preclude varying the terms of a written contract when the oral evidence relates to an unwritten stipulation made as an inducement to enter into the contract.

Example:

“In Pennsylvania it is well settled "that parol evidence is admissible to show that at the execution of a written instrument a stipulation was entered into, a condition annexed, or a verbal promise made upon the faith of which the writing was executed, though it may vary materially the terms of the contract." Noel v. Kessler, 252 Pa. St. 244, 97 Atl. 446 [citing, Greenawalt v. Kohne, 85 Pa. St. 369, - Atl. - , and Machin v. Prudential Trust Co., 210 Pa. St. 253, 59 Atl. 1073].

Also see, “The Admissibility of Evidence to Establish Oral Contemporaneous Inducing Promises to Affect Written Instruments in Pennsylvania”, by Stanley Folz, 43 American Law Register (N.S.), 601.