Selective Enforcement of a Pet Policy Is a No-No

In George Orwell’s dystopian allegory, Animal Farm, all the pigs were equal but some were more equal than others. At a Manhattan co-op, a disgruntled shareholder complains that the house rules state that dogs are allowed with board approval, but the board and management claim there’s a “no dogs” policy. Even so, the board has allowed select residents to get dogs. At this co-op, in other words, some dogs – and some shareholders – are more equal than others. What can a disgruntled shareholder do?

“Request an opportunity to review all written policies, resolutions, and minutes related to the board’s changing position on dogs before embarking on a legal challenge,” attorney Elizabeth Donoghue, of Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, tells Brick Underground.

Also look at the proprietary lease, advises attorney Steve Wagner, a partner at Wagner Berkow. “Selective enforcement of house rules is a no-no, and may be subject to a number of claims by an aggrieved tenant-shareholder,” Wagner says. These claims include unequal shareholder treatment, breach of fiduciary duty (if enforcement is motivated by personal vendettas), or human rights violations if the enforcement is discriminatory (such as refusing an emotional support pet for a resident with a disability).