Eviction Defense Eviction Notice for incident with dog

[tsherma3]

Hello,

I have recently received an eviction notice for an event that occurred with my dog. To keep that story simple as possible. My dog, who is a registered emotional support animal living in a complex that typically does not allow animals, lunged for a man as I was exiting my building. The man never acknowledged to me in any fashion that my dog had bitten him. I still maintain that my dog never bit him. Within a few hours, animal control came to my residence asking for my dog's tags and veterinary record, which I provided. My dog was then placed under a mandatory 10-day quarantine, and I immediately purchased a muzzle. He has not been taken outside since the incident without a muzzle. At no point was I asked by the animal control officer my side of the events and the two subject parties never discussed the incident with animal control at the same time. The following day I was finally approached by the "victim" and his wife who requested $200 dollars from me for the incident. Being a new neighbor, and wanting to put the situation in the past, I agreed to the $200 payout and did through a notarized personal injury release which maintained that I did not admit guilt. The following week I have been served with wrongful occupancy for breach of my lease due to the safety issues with other tenants. Again, my side of the story has never been asked for or told, all action has taken place under the assumption that the "victim"'s side of the story was true, even though there were no witnesses to the event or camera's at the complex.

Furthermore, as a side note, when the property manager signed my lease, she did so in an actual signature, but it wasn't their signature. It was the name of the company, even though the spot for the signature clearly states that it is for the property managers personal signature.

What are my rights in this situation? How do they assume my guilt without ever corroborating the stories of the two parties? Is my lease even valid with this type of signature?

I appreciate any type of insight on the matter and will gladly expand on any aspect if need be.

 

[army judge]

You can ignore the notice to vacate, however, if you do you'll likely be served formal eviction papers and the matter will be heard before a judge.

The incident leading to your dog biting a neighbor most likely violated your lease terms.

Read your lease to refresh your memory.

This isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil matter based upon an allegation that allowing your dog to bite a neighbor violated the lease.

The mere filing of an eviction can stain your record for decades causing you to be unable to rent decent housing.

The best thing to do is honor the request to vacate.

Canines aren't equipped with human faculties.

Heck, even many humans behave violently, irrationally, unpredictably at times.

That said, your side of the story isn't required.

A human was bitten by a domesticated canine.

Not much more need be said.

 

[tsherma3]

Sir, I appreciate your response. But you are suggesting that any complaint filed against a leashed dog is automatically assumed to be true? The owner's side of the story is assumed to have no validity? Without any witnesses or camera's to corroborate a victims story who solicited money from the dog's owner?

Also, I was not given a notice to vacate. I was given formal eviction papers with a court date set before I was even aware that the property management had been notified of the issue.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[adjusterjack]

when the property manager signed my lease, she did so in an actual signature, but it wasn't their signature. It was the name of the company, even though the spot for the signature clearly states that it is for the property managers personal signature.

Irrelevant. Didn't even require her signature to be binding on you.

But you are suggesting that any complaint filed against a leashed dog is automatically assumed to be true? The owner's side of the story is assumed to have no validity? Without any witnesses or camera's to corroborate a victims story who solicited money from the dog's owner?

From the point of view of the landlord, the answer is yes to all those questions. You get to raise your defenses when legal action is taken against you.

Also, I was not given a notice to vacate. I was given formal eviction papers with a court date

Unfortunately, unlike most other states, West Virginia doesn't require notice of termination with opportunity to cure an alleged breach of the lease and allows the landlord to go right to court to file for eviction.

You get to raise your defenses at the hearing. You might want to talk to a tenant rights attorney before then.

 

[tsherma3]

From the point of view of the landlord, the answer is yes to all those questions. You get to raise your defenses when legal action is taken against you.
.

I understand and I appreciate the insight! I understand the landlord has the right to believe the "victim" only, but in terms of the eye of the law, won't both of our stories have to hold equal weight? How can someone's story be held to be more true than another with no other witnesses?

 

[mightymoose]

You are correct... if you are taken to court to be evicted then at some point someone would have to produce evidence of a dog bite or evidence that the dog is vicious.
You don't want it to come to that though. It may be in your best interest to willingly move. You might tell the landlord that you intend to comply but need a little more time to prepare. They might agree. You might even convince them to forget the whole thing if you are otherwise on good terms.
Just know they date you have been given is not final. You still have some wiggle room.

 

[adjusterjack]

in terms of the eye of the law, won't both of our stories have to hold equal weight?

That's what courts are for. And, no, both stories don't have to be given equal weight. Because, in court, the typical result is that one side wins and one side loses.

How can someone's story be held to be more true than another with no other witnesses?

Depends on what story is being told and who is telling it. Which is true and which is not is for a court to decide.

You're facing eviction because your dog is a safety risk to other tenants. By your own admission your dog "lunged" at another tenant. Once that is established it is all that is needed for a ruling that your dog is a safety risk to other tenants. Doesn't matter if your dog bit, nipped or just snapped, at the other tenant.

And to that extent I disagree with:

at some point someone would have to produce evidence of a dog bite or evidence that the dog is vicious.

That would be required if you were sued by the victim but I don't think it is necessary to prove those elements for an eviction though it would be icing on the cake if the victim came to court and demonstrated a bite mark.

 

[tsherma3]

That would be required if you were sued by the victim but I don't think it is necessary to prove those elements for an eviction though it would be icing on the cake if the victim came to court and demonstrated a bite mark.

Thank you for your insight as well. My question now is would the "one-bite" law come into play here? West Virginia practices it in cases where the dog was on a leash and has not demonstrated a vicious past. I'm just not sure if it applies in terms of eviction or if that is only for personal injury. Also there is no additional verbiage in my lease discussing any of these matters, and no pet addendum.

Also, I believe the "victim" may be on my side, as in they do not feel the incident warranted eviction. If I could obtain a statement from them stating this, as well as pictures of the small mark my dog left on the "victim", combined with the one-bite rule, could this be enough to have a magistrate rule in my favor?

Thanks again

 

[mightymoose]

That would be required if you were sued by the victim but I don't think it is necessary to prove those elements for an eviction though it would be icing on the cake if the victim came to court and demonstrated a bite mark.

If the reason for eviction is based on a lease violation regarding the dog then I would expect the landlord to somehow have to show what happened.
I would have insisted to see evidence of a bite and a doctor bill before caughing up the $200 too.
Without these things I'm not sure what the eviction would be based upon.

 

[army judge]

My question now is would the "one-bite" law come into play here?

Probably not, but you need real legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in WV, not ANONYMOUS internet starnagers.

I believe the "victim" may be on my side, as in they do not feel the incident warranted eviction.

The neighbor received $200 from you.
That said, he/she/they isn't (aren't) your landlord.
Your landlord (property owner) is the entity bringing the eviction action against you.
The neighbor might be wise not to voice an opinion of the landlord's busness, lest he/she/they could be facing what you're facing.

Here's what you're ignoring.

Even if the landlord changes her/his mind and instructs the lawyers to move to dismiss the eviction action, that alone is suficient for your name be in the INFAMOUS "bad tenants" database.

I have had clients suffer such a fate, and most of them have hit that list.

Many of them, otherwise nice people, are forced to rent from "slumlords" existing in filthy, roach infested, squalor in crime ridden sections of towns/cities that few dare venture into.

They are suffering simply because an eviction wa sfiled against them, then later dismissed, or in some cases, they won the case.

Doesn't matter to the database nazis, their names have been inscribed into the rolls for all eternity.

The import of such a move portends decades of being denied the ability to rent decent housing.

It cna also impact your ability to obtain mortgages, and could even ding or dent yoru FICO.

Alas, if the landlord has filed a formal eviction action, all this chatter is in vain.

 

[tsherma3]

Probably not, but you need real legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in WV, not ANONYMOUS internet starnagers.



The neighbor received $200 from you.
That said, he/she/they isn't (aren't) your landlord.
Your landlord (property owner) is the entity bringing the eviction action against you.
The neighbor might be wise not to voice an opinion of the landlord's busness, lest he/she/they could be facing what you're facing.

Here's what you're ignoring.

Even if the landlord changes her/his mind and instructs the lawyers to move to dismiss the eviction action, that alone is suficient for your name be in the INFAMOUS "bad tenants" database.

I have had clients suffer such a fate, and most of them have hit that list.

Many of them, otherwise nice people, are forced to rent from "slumlords" existing in filthy, roach infested, squalor in crime ridden sections of towns/cities that few dare venture into.

They are suffering simply because an eviction wa sfiled against them, then later dismissed, or in some cases, they won the case.

Doesn't matter to the database nazis, their names have been inscribed into the rolls for all eternity.

The import of such a move portends decades of being denied the ability to rent decent housing.

It cna also impact your ability to obtain mortgages, and could even ding or dent yoru FICO.

Alas, if the landlord has filed a formal eviction action, all this chatter is in vain.

Thanks for the positivity my dude. Guess I'll go live in squaller now. Glad that my life and the life of your clients are the center of your jokes. Have a good evening.

 

[adjusterjack]

My question now is would the "one-bite" law come into play here?

It wouldn't. That has to do with injuries to the victim.

West Virginia practices it in cases where the dog was on a leash and has not demonstrated a vicious past.

I know. I looked it up.

I'm just not sure if it applies in terms of eviction or if that is only for personal injury.

It's for personal injury.

Also, I believe the "victim" may be on my side, as in they do not feel the incident warranted eviction. If I could obtain a statement from them stating this, as well as pictures of the small mark my dog left on the "victim", combined with the one-bite rule, could this be enough to have a magistrate rule in my favor?

Bad idea. First of all, a written statement would be inadmissible. You'd need him to come to court to testify. Secondly, him testifying that there was a bite would make the landlord's case for him that your dog was a safety risk.

If the reason for eviction is based on a lease violation regarding the dog then I would expect the landlord to somehow have to show what happened.

I don't see any difficulty there.

Also there is no additional verbiage in my lease discussing any of these matters,

Doesn't have to be anything specific in your lease that says "Don't let your dog loose, don't let your dog bite others, etc." I'm guessing that your lease says something like:

The Tenant(s) agree to obey all federal, state, and local laws and to act in a manner that does not disturb the peace of other's quiet enjoyment.

A provision like that would certainly cover your dog being a safety risk to others.

And even if something like that were not written into the lease, at common law there would be an implied covenant that you not become a safety risk to others. A breach of that covenant gives the landlord good cause to evict.