Dog Bites Condo Board

Bark and bite. When dealing with people who claim they need an emotional-support animal, boards have to tread very carefully so they don’t run afoul of anti-discrimination laws and wind up getting hit with fines and legal fees. We manage a condominium on Long Island that allows one dog per family. A unit-owner acquired a second dog, registered both of them as emotional-support dogs and provided documentation as to why they were needed. Contrary to management’s advice, the board instructed its attorney to demand that the unit-owner remove one dog or face fines and legal fees. The unit-owner filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Not surprisingly, the board lost. It had to agree to implement a reasonable accommodation policy and to participate in education and training, which is standard in these types of settlements. But in addition, the condo board had to pay a monetary award to the unit-owner, which was large enough that the board really felt it. The condo’s insurance company covered its defense, but because the board was found to be in the wrong, it had to pay the fine out of its own pocket.

All wet. At another condominium, we had a similar case where the board not only had to deal with a problematic assistance-dog owner, but with disgruntled unit-owners who were upset because he regularly brought the animal to the condo’s recreational facilities — a clubhouse, tennis courts and even the swimming pool. Someone complained, and once again the board, contrary to advice from management and its attorney, threatened the unit-owner with fines and legal fees. This time the owner went to the New York Division of Human Rights, and once again the board lost and had to allow the dog into all of the community areas. 

Lost cause. People with emotional-support animals are almost always the prevailing party, even if unit-owners or shareholders are allergic to dogs or, say, have children who are afraid of them — and even when they seem to be clearly in the wrong. We have a condo with a no-dogs policy where a prospective buyer submitted a purchase application with a signed affidavit saying he did not own a dog, and a similar affidavit prior to closing. Then he moved in with a dog. The board wanted its attorney to notify him that he was in violation of the condo’s restrictions and had committed fraudulent misrepresentation, but after he submitted documents that his dog was registered as an emotional-support animal, the attorney advised the board not to pursue things further and avoid litigation. 

The insurance angle. In the first two cases, the boards filed insurance claims after they were sued. When that happens, the insurance company looks at the case, and if it’s merited, it will assign an attorney, which gets costly. Attorneys have to take statements from everybody involved, including witnesses. By the time the attorneys submit their response to HUD or the Division of Human Rights, the insurance company has paid out thousands of dollars defending the board. And that is going to affect future premiums. I should add that incidents with dogs have become one of the leading causes of insurance claims on Long Island, surpassing even trip-and-fall claims.

The takeaway. Boards are caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to emotional-support animals. If the offering plan and house rules prohibit pets, the best you can do is to make that known to anybody who lives in the community or intends to buy. Then you’re dependent upon that person’s integrity and honor and truthfulness. No matter how the board or other owners feel about it, you can’t let emotions get in the way if people with emotional-support animals don’t abide by the rules. You’ve got to comply with the law.