What is the significance of the recent court ruling, Henderson Vs. Five Properties, LLC have on Emotional Support Animals (ESA) to property managers and Landlords in Oklahoma? Specifically in Tulsa?
While it is important to note this decision comes in the Louisiana Eastern District Court, most other federal courts at this level will follow this decision. What does this mean for Landlords and Property Managers? I think this a correction of an over reach by HUD that was negatively impacting property owners and their rights. First I am not discounting the need and effectiveness of an emotional support animal. Anyone needing an ESA has the right to request and reasonable accommodation from their housing provider to have and ESA to assist with their disability. This is no different than a resident with a wheelchair requesting a ramp be installed at a property. If this request is reasonable the resident, at their expense, request and make the modification. This has a neutral financial effect on the housing provider. The over reach by HUD on the ESA accommodation stretched further by saying a housing provider could not charge and related animal fees or deposits for an ESA. The court determined that this was an incorrect guidance by HUD. We all know animals damage property. For sure the housing provider cannot charge more than is charged to the other residents but the court determined it is reasonable for a housing provider to charge these same fees and deposits that are being charged to their other residents. For our property owners and tenants in Tulsa I see this as a victory. Residents needing an ESA will be able to request their accommodation and not be lumped into the group of residents just trying to “cheat the system”. Owners can now protect their property and assets with the appropriate fees and deposits ensuring quality affordable housing remains available in the Tulsa and Oklahoma markets
“A recent federal court decision brings much-needed balance to emotional support animal requests under the Fair Housing Act. The ruling clarifies that accommodations are case-by-case, not automatic fee waivers, so housing providers may apply standard animal fees and deposits when a waiver isn’t necessary for a resident’s equal use and enjoyment of their home. As a NARPM member, I see this as a win for both residents and owners in Oklahoma and nationwide: it protects people with disabilities while also safeguarding property assets and supporting the supply of quality, affordable housing. At Renters Place, we’ll continue to review ESA requests promptly and fairly, and offer practical solutions, like payment plans, so housing remains accessible to everyone.” Tracy Streich, Owner & Broker, Renters Place in Tulsa, OK
