Can a landlord charge for a pet in Oregon, and what does the law require for an assistance animal?

Yes — a pet deposit is allowed, with no ceiling of its own.

Oregon expressly contemplates a pet deposit and sets no ceiling on it, and there is no general deposit cap in Oregon for it to sit inside: the phrase security deposit appears more than 60 times in the landlord-tenant act and never with a dollar or fractional limit. What the act regulates is when a deposit may be increased and what it may be claimed for. A pet deposit must be refundable, must be listed in a written rental agreement if there is one (section 90.300, subsection 3), and may not be required for a service animal or companion animal that a tenant with a disability needs as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws (subsection 4); the rules go further and bar deposits and other fees for any animal that mitigates a disability-related need, for an applicant as well as a resident. In a manufactured dwelling or floating home facility the answer is the opposite of the private-market answer: a facility landlord may not charge any pet amount at all, and that row is stated below.

Refundability: Refundable, because a pet deposit is a security deposit and rides the whole of section 90.300: the landlord must give a receipt, may claim only what is reasonably necessary to remedy the tenant's defaults and to repair damage caused by the tenant not including ordinary wear and tear, must deliver a written accounting stating the basis of each claim within 31 days after the tenancy ends and the tenant gives up possession, must return the balance in the same 31 days, and owes twice the amount withheld where there is no written accounting or the withholding is in bad faith. Carpet cleaning may be deducted only on three stated conditions, one of which is that the written rental agreement says the landlord may deduct it. A charge that is not refundable is not a deposit at all; it is a fee, and the fee answer is below.

Where the rule switches off or on: The limit is on timing, not on amount. A landlord may not change the rental agreement to require a new or increased security deposit during the first year after the tenancy begins, with one exception that names the pet: the landlord may require an additional deposit where the landlord and tenant agree to modify the terms of the rental agreement to permit a pet, or for other cause, and the additional deposit relates to that modification. That exception is itself subject to the assistance-animal bar. After the first year, a landlord who requires a new or increased deposit must allow the tenant at least three months to pay it (section 90.300, subsection 5).

No for a non-refundable pet fee, which a general or specific rule bars. Monthly pet rent is lawful and uncapped in amount, because Oregon's definition of rent names the pet: rent means any payment to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement, periodic or otherwise, in exchange for the right of a tenant and any permitted pet to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others and to use the premises (section 90.100, subsection 41, paragraph a).

Oregon bans the non-refundable pet fee and permits monthly pet rent, and both answers come from the definitions section. What a landlord may charge for a pet noncompliance is capped and laddered: a written warning describing the specific noncompliance and the amount of the fee must come first, the warning or the fee must issue within 30 days of the act, the second noncompliance of the same kind within a year of the warning costs no more than $50, a third or later one no more than $50 plus five percent of the current period's rent, and the charges for smoking and for keeping an unpermitted pet capable of causing damage are capped at $250, with the unpermitted-pet charge unavailable until 48 hours after the warning notice. A landlord may terminate for a noncompliance instead of charging a fee but may not do both for the same noncompliance, and may not deduct a fee from rent. Non-payment of a fee is cause for termination under the for-cause section, not grounds for a non-payment-of-rent termination. Oregon sets no reasonableness test on the size of a pet charge. In a facility, no one-time, monthly or periodic pet amount may be charged at all, and a charge for violating a pet agreement or pet rule may not exceed $50 for each violation.

Monthly pet rent: Monthly pet rent is lawful and uncapped in amount, because Oregon's definition of rent names the pet: rent means any payment to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement, periodic or otherwise, in exchange for the right of a tenant and any permitted pet to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others and to use the premises (section 90.100, subsection 41, paragraph a). Rent expressly does not include security deposits or fees (paragraph b), so the closed fee list never reaches pet rent and a landlord cannot save an unlawful pet fee by renaming it. The consequence runs the other way too: because pet rent is rent, introducing it or raising it is a rent increase. There may be no rent increase during the first year of a tenancy other than week to week, and after that only on at least 90 days' written notice, not more than once in any 12-month period, and within the yearly maximum percentage the state publishes (sections 90.323 and 90.324). So a landlord who agrees in the first year to let a tenant keep a pet may take an additional deposit for it and may not add pet rent for it.

A one-time pet fee: Unlawful. A fee means a payment of money that is not refundable (section 90.100, subsection 17), and a landlord may not charge a fee at the beginning of the tenancy for an anticipated expense and may not require the payment of any fee except as the fee section provides (section 90.302, subsection 1). Nothing on that closed list is a charge for having a pet. Charging one entitles the tenant to twice the tenant's actual damages or $300, whichever is greater (subsection 8).

How far the non-refundable-fee rule reaches: The bar is general and closed rather than pet-specific, and it reaches every charge that is not refundable, at the start of the tenancy or later: no fee may be required except those the section lists, and every fee must be described in a written rental agreement (section 90.302, subsection 1). A landlord may not charge any form of liquidated damages, however designated (subsection 5). The listed fees that touch animals are all charges for a noncompliance, not for having a pet: a violation of a written pet agreement or of a facility pet rule, failure to clean up pet waste outside the unit, failure to clean up the waste of a service animal or companion animal outside the unit, and keeping an unpermitted pet capable of causing damage to persons or property.

No — but a written-rules or mid-term-change provision would govern a pet rule the landlord adopts.

No Oregon law requires a lease to state a pet policy or to say whether pets are allowed. Two writing duties are triggered by the money rather than by the pet: a written rental agreement must list a security deposit paid or required, and a fee must be described in a written rental agreement. Both are general, and neither names a pet. Taken together with the deposit and rent rules, the mid-tenancy answer has three parts: a new no-pets rule ordinarily needs the tenant's written consent, a new or increased pet deposit in the first year is lawful only by an agreement that modifies the tenancy to permit the pet, and new or increased pet rent is barred outright in the first year and is a rent increase after that. No state law limits the number, size or weight of pets in a private-market tenancy; the only occupancy limit in the act is about people, may be no more restrictive than two per bedroom, must be reasonable and must take account of any discriminatory impact. Oregon requires no publicly financed or income-restricted housing to allow pets; the housing chapter and the housing agency's rules carry no pet or animal duty, and the only place the state pairs housing money with animals is a homeless-services program that funds food, crates and basic veterinary care for people with companion animals.

When the lease is silent: Oregon supplies no default either way. A pet is permitted unless the rental agreement or a valid rule forbids it, and the definition of rent, which speaks of any permitted pet, assumes that permission comes from the agreement. Where a tenant keeps a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property in violation of the rental agreement, the landlord's route is a written notice specifying the violation and terminating the tenancy on a date at least ten days later unless the tenant removes the pet first (section 90.405).

Changing the rule mid-tenancy: A landlord may adopt a rule concerning the tenant's use and occupancy of the premises, but it is enforceable only if its purpose is to promote the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants, to preserve the property from abusive use or to distribute services fairly; it is reasonably related to that purpose; it applies to all tenants in the premises in a fair manner; it is explicit enough to tell the tenant what to do; it is not a way of evading the landlord's own obligations; and the tenant had written notice of it when the agreement was signed or when it was adopted (section 90.262, subsection 1). A rule adopted after the tenant enters into the rental agreement that works a substantial modification of the bargain is not valid unless the tenant consents to it in writing (subsection 2), so a mid-tenancy no-pets rule imposed on a tenant who already keeps a pet will ordinarily need written consent.

Yes.

No Oregon law limits a landlord's breed, size or weight rule, and none bans one, in any class of housing. The word breed appears once in the whole landlord-tenant act and it is part of an eviction test, not a permission: a pet capable of causing damage to persons or property means an animal that, because of the nature, size or behavioral characteristics of that particular animal or of that breed or type of animal generally, a reasonable person might consider capable of causing personal injury or property damage, including water damage from medium or larger fish tanks (section 90.405, subsection 2). That test applies only where the pet is already unpermitted under the rental agreement; it is not authority for a breed clause and does not limit one, and it does not apply in a manufactured dwelling or floating home facility. For an animal a tenant with a disability needs, breed does not decide anything: the only exit is a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced, judged by an individualized assessment based on reliable objective evidence such as current conduct or a recent history of overt acts, weighing the nature, duration and severity of the risk, the probability that injury will occur, and whether an accommodation would remove the threat. A blanket breed rule does not meet that test. Oregon also leaves breed-specific local ordinances alone, which is the opposite of several other states.

Yes — a state statute or rule sets what a landlord may request or what a certifier must meet for an assistance animal in housing. Both a statute and an administrative rule under it speak to it. State law incorporates a federal statute or codified regulation by reference.

The statute makes it unlawful to discriminate because of the disability of a purchaser, of a person who lives or intends to live in the dwelling, or of a person associated with the purchaser, and purchaser includes an occupant, prospective occupant, renter, prospective renter or lessee. Two limbs carry this topic: refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when the accommodations may be necessary to give the individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and making any distinction or restriction in the price, terms, conditions or privileges relating to the rental, lease or occupancy of real property or the furnishing of facilities or services in connection with it (section 659A.145, subsection 2, paragraphs g and c). Any violation of the section is an unlawful practice. The rules add the animal clauses the statute lacks: it is a violation for a housing provider to refuse to permit a person with a disability to live in a covered dwelling with an animal that mitigates one or more of the person's disability-related needs, except where a specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals and the threat cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced, and a housing provider may not charge a resident or applicant deposits or other fees for keeping an animal covered by the rule. The direct-threat judgment must be an individualized assessment based on reliable objective evidence, weighing the nature, duration and severity of the risk of injury, the probability that injury will actually occur, and whether any reasonable accommodation would eliminate the threat.

Who it binds: Everyone, on all three limbs, which is unusual. The fair housing statute contains no exemption of any kind; the owner-occupied carve-out elsewhere in that chapter is confined by its own words to that section and to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and familial status, and disability is not among them. The rules mirror that exactly: their exceptions reach only sex, sexual orientation and familial status, the housing-for-older-persons exception is about familial status, and the religious exemption is confined to a belief about sexual orientation, so no disability exception exists anywhere in them. The charge bar in the landlord-tenant act binds every tenancy the act governs, which means everything outside the nine excluded arrangements. One drafting gap is worth knowing: the rule speaks of a housing provider and of a covered dwelling without defining either, while it does define dwelling in the federal formulation as any building or part of a building occupied as or designed for occupancy as a residence by one or more families, and vacant land offered for the construction of one.

The rule's currency: OAR 839-005-0220, the Bureau of Labor and Industries' rule on discrimination in real property transactions based on disability, read on the Secretary of State's administrative-rules site (secure.sos.state.or.us). Statutory authority: ORS 659A.805. Statutes implemented: ORS 659A.103 to 659A.142, 659A.145 and 659A.421, and 42 U.S.C. §3601-3617. History line, last entry: "BLI 11-2015, f. & cert. ef. 8-4-15", with earlier entries BLI 8-2011, BLI 8-2010, BLI 43-2008, BLI 40-2008(Temp), BLI 7-2008(Temp) and BLI 36-2007; the site prints no compilation date, so the History line is the currency instrument and nothing has been filed on these housing rules since August 4, 2015.

A necessity standard rather than a script. A housing provider may not require verification of the disability-related need for a requested accommodation if that need is readily apparent or otherwise known; and if the disability or the disability-related need is not readily apparent or otherwise known, the provider may request only information that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation (OAR 839-005-0220, subsection 2, paragraph c, subparagraphs A and B). Oregon has no list of permitted questions for housing. The two-question script that appears in summaries belongs to the public-accommodations statute and does not carry across.

Oregon regulates the landlord's demand and says nothing at all about the letter. Where the need is readily apparent or otherwise known, no verification may be required; otherwise only information necessary to evaluate the disability-related need may be requested. Beyond that, nothing: no profession or license class is named, no minimum treatment relationship or number of sessions, no telehealth rule, no annual re-evaluation, no prescribed or prohibited form, no clause saying an online certificate or registration is insufficient, no vaccination condition, no express bar on medical records beyond the necessity limit, and no deadline for the landlord's answer, which need not even be in writing. No duty falls on the clinician either: the health-profession chapters carry no animal text at all, so there is no licensing consequence for writing an accommodation letter and no standard the letter must meet. A landlord who is told the need is obvious and asks for paperwork anyway is the ordinary Oregon violation.

No — a state bar on an extra charge reaches an emotional support animal on the face of the definition it hangs on; the bar is an express no-extra-charge clause, in a statute and an administrative rule.

Two instruments bar the charge and they do not reach equally far. The statute says a landlord may not charge a tenant a pet security deposit for keeping a service animal or companion animal that a tenant with a disability requires as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws. The rule says a housing provider may not charge a resident or applicant deposits or other fees for keeping an animal that mitigates one or more of the person's disability-related needs. So the rule is wider three ways: it reaches fees as well as deposits, it reaches an applicant as well as a sitting resident, and it defines its own subject instead of borrowing the fair housing coverage test. Monthly pet rent is caught as well, though not by the fee bar, because charging a tenant with an assistance animal a recurring animal charge that other tenants do not pay is a distinction in the price, terms, conditions or privileges of the tenancy, which the statute makes unlawful on its face. One point in the other direction has to be said plainly, because it is in the same chapter: Oregon expressly permits a noncompliance charge for failing to clean up the waste of a service animal or companion animal outside the unit, on the same warning notice and the same ladder as any other tenant.

The definition it hangs on: The statute's subject is "a service animal or companion animal that a tenant with a disability requires as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws" (ORS 90.300(4)), and neither term is defined anywhere in the landlord-tenant act, so the words are not limited to a trained animal. The rule's subject is wider still: "an animal that mitigates one or more of the person's disability-related needs" (OAR 839-005-0220(2)(c)(C)), which is species-neutral and carries no training requirement.

Remedy: A violation of the fair housing statute is an unlawful practice, enforced by a complaint to the Bureau of Labor and Industries' Civil Rights Division or by a civil action under the civil rights chapter; the rules carry no separate figure. Charging an unlawful fee under the landlord-tenant act separately entitles the tenant to twice the tenant's actual damages or $300, whichever is greater.

The tenant is liable for damage the animal causes like any other tenant, by express words.

Parity, preserved in three places. The security deposit may still be claimed for damage to the premises caused by the tenant, not including ordinary wear and tear, and an animal's damage is the tenant's damage; only the pet deposit as a separate charge is barred (section 90.300, subsection 7). The fee section expressly allows a noncompliance charge for failure to clean up the waste of a service animal or companion animal from a part of the premises other than the dwelling unit, on the same warning-first ladder of $50 and then $50 plus five percent of the rent (section 90.302, subsection 3). And the ordinary 24-hour termination grounds remain available where a tenant's pet seriously threatens or inflicts substantial personal injury, injures a neighbor, damages the premises on more than one occasion, or is involved in conduct outrageous in the extreme (section 90.396). Conduct, not the animal's type, is the exit: a specific animal that is a direct threat which cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced falls outside the accommodation duty, judged by an individualized assessment on objective evidence.

None — no offense, penalty, forfeiture, eviction ground or licensing sanction exists.

Oregon has no offense, civil penalty, forfeiture, eviction ground or licensing sanction for misrepresenting an animal as a service, assistance, support or companion animal, in housing or anywhere else. It is one of the few states with nothing of the kind: the word misrepresent does not appear in the civil rights chapter, in any of the seven criminal-code chapters, or in the labor bureau's civil rights rules, and the only two occurrences in the landlord-tenant act are about a landlord misrepresenting the condition of abandoned property. What Oregon has instead runs the other way and protects the animal. Injuring or attempting to injure an animal a person knows or should know is an assistance animal, or interfering with one while it is being used to assist a person with a disability, is a Class A misdemeanor (section 167.352). A separate civil action allows economic and noneconomic damages for harm to or theft of an assistance animal, including its replacement value with no reduction for the animal's age or experience and the cost of temporary replacement assistance, with attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff, though not where the handler was trespassing (section 659A.141). And no city or county may charge a fee to license a dog used as an assistance animal (section 609.105).

Yes, within the powers state law names in this row.

Three separate things, and they point different ways. Local rent control is preempted statewide, and because Oregon's definition of rent covers payment for the right of a permitted pet to occupy, a municipal cap on pet rent is inside that preemption. Local rules about pet deposits and pet fees are not, because the same definition excludes deposits and fees from rent and the landlord-tenant act contains no preemption clause of any kind, so the state neither authorizes nor forbids them. Local control of dogs, including breed rules, is expressly preserved to cities and counties. Cities and counties otherwise hold general home-rule grants, a city being free to take all action necessary or convenient for the government of its local affairs except as limited by general law, and a county to exercise authority over matters of county concern to the fullest extent the constitutions and laws allow. Oregon has no fair-housing devolution clause. Portland, the city a reader is most likely to ask about, has no pet rule at all: its renter-protection code regulates screening criteria and deposits in detail and contains no occurrence of pet or animal, so the state rules govern there.

Local rent control barred: A city or county may not enact any ordinance or resolution that controls the rent which may be charged for the rental of any dwelling unit, and the section defines rent by reference to the landlord-tenant act, where rent means any payment for the right of a tenant and any permitted pet to occupy. A municipal cap on pet rent is therefore a control on rent and is barred. The section applies throughout the state, and no city or county may enact or enforce anything inconsistent with it. The exceptions are contract-based affordable-housing programs, condominium-conversion notice periods and temporary controls after a disaster. This chain is what the statutes say; no Oregon appellate decision has applied the preemption to a pet charge. Text: ORS 91.225 · (1), (2), (6), (7); with ORS 90.100(41).

Localities may regulate the keeping or licensing of animals: The state dog-control statutes say in terms that they do not limit the powers of cities and counties to adopt ordinances and regulations relating to the control of dogs, a county program does not apply inside a city that has its own, and a city or county may prohibit the keeping of wildlife and of exotic animals by ordinance. Oregon has no statute preempting breed-specific local law, so local dog rules, including breed rules, stand. Text: ORS 609.015, 609.135, 609.205 · 609.015(1); 609.135(2); 609.205.