Are our tenants voiding there lease agreements?

[Ajturner]

Hi we are leasing out our property on 25 acres.the land is included in the lease however the only approved animal is one outside dog.
We recently had permission to access a storage container on the property and found that there was 5 dogs locked inside with no one home as well as a heap of chickens, more dogs outside and animals in the paddocks including 5 cows, a couple of horses , a sheep and an alpaca.
We contacted the real estate and told them we wanted all the other animals removed from the property as that was not in our lease agreement.they have sent a letter to the tenants informing them they are in breach of the lease and have given them one month to remove the animals.
Today I was contacted by our neighbour who told me he owns the cattle on the property and has been agisting the land from our tenants and was asking if he could either continue this arrangement or pay us the ageist meant fee.

We had previously decided not to renew their lease and move back into the property in October when the lease is up and have had the real estate notify them that their lease would not be renewed however since it appears the tenants cannot be trusted and are obviously not willing to abide by the lease agreements do we have any grounds to terminate the lease immediately?

Where do we stand legally and what are our options?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Perp]

since it appears the tenants cannot be trusted and are obviously not willing to abide by the lease agreements do we have any grounds to terminate the lease immediately?

Probably not, and why would you want to? Worried the animals are eating too much grass or something?

 

[Xenia IM]

Hi AJ
Is the property in NSW? I am a property manager in SA and mainly deal with standard residential property so I am not the most qualified on this forum to comment - there are other PMs that deal with rural and/or NSW real estate who may offer a better comment. Please take this as opinion only.

If there are more animals than what is stated on the lease then yes it is a breach (at least in SA) which requires a breach notice.

If the breach is not remedied within the specified time, ie one month, whether you can get immediate vacant possession may not be that clear. It may need to be heard at a tribunal process and an external decision made.
Because it can be classed as a farm, you may need to state a reason why more than one animal cannot be kept so you decision could be overruled.

You are well within your rights to not renew the lease however and that cannot be challenged.

 

[Perp]

Because it can be classed as a farm, you may need to state a reason why more than one animal cannot be kept so you decision could be overruled.

Exactly. I can't imagine any member of the judiciary finding that 25 acres can't reasonably contain more than one dog.

Requiring the 5 dogs to be kept outside is a more reasonable position that is likely to be supported, but preventing more than one dog outside on 25 acres is unlikely to be seen as a reasonable restriction.

 

[Scott No Mates]

You have leased a farm, the tenant has an obligation to slash the grass & control weeds. Although not 100% in compliance with the lease (with regards to subletting), the preclusion of grazing animals on the land would not be prohibited. As you have leased the land entirely to the tenant, you cannot enter into an agreement with the neighbour for the agistment nor can you increase the tenant's rent as they are entitled to earn an income from the land (during the fixed term).

 

[kathryn d]

Here's my suggestion.

If you don't mind the farm animals being there (free fertilizer),


Tell the current tenants, you are not going to renew, and if they want to move early, that is fine with you.

Also privately inform your neighbour that you don't have an issue with the animals, and when you start living there, you can make some sort of arrangement.

 

[Bhp19]

Exactly. I can't imagine any member of the judiciary finding that 25 acres can't reasonably contain more than one dog.

Requiring the 5 dogs to be kept outside is a more reasonable position that is likely to be supported, but preventing more than one dog outside on 25 acres is unlikely to be seen as a reasonable restriction.

Please excuse my naievity but isn't the tenant required to abide by the conditions of the lease? I understand that a property of this size could accommodate many more animals, but if the owner of the property has allowed one dog on the property and no more then surely the tenant, and no-one else should be able to challenge that, am I wrong in my thinking?

 

[Perp]

Please excuse my naievity but isn't the tenant required to abide by the conditions of the lease? I understand that a property of this size could accommodate many more animals, but if the owner of the property has allowed one dog on the property and no more then surely the tenant, and no-one else should be able to challenge that, am I wrong in my thinking?

I agree in principle, but in practice, Tribunals have consistently made findings that limits on animals have to be reasonable. Even violation of "no pets" provisions is extremely difficult to use as grounds to evict, unless the property is in a "no pets" complex (for example), the pets are doing extreme damage, and/or the tenants refuse to get rid of the animal.

If the tenant in this thread had said "can I have these animals added to our lease?", the Tribunal would probably adopt the position that that's a reasonable request (given that it's 25 acres), and that the owner would be unreasonable to refuse.

Therefore, in practice, the only thing the tenant is probably guilty of is failing to notify that they have more animals.

Even if the Tribunal found that the tenants were in violation of the lease, and that it wasn't reasonable for them to have more animals, the remedy to the owner would first be to request that the animals be removed within a reasonable period (e.g. two weeks), not terminate the lease as a first step.

The other violation is the "dogs inside issue", but the owners will have to be careful in raising that issue with regard to how they know there were dogs inside. The owners only had permission to go on the property to access a storage container. Unless the container's stored up against the house, looking in the windows is likely to be outside the scope of their permission to enter and they may be guilty of trespass.

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying this is my understanding of how it works in practice.

 

[Bhp19]

I agree in principle, but in practice, Tribunals have consistently made findings that limits on animals have to be reasonable. Even violation of "no pets" provisions is extremely difficult to use as grounds to evict, unless the property is in a "no pets" complex (for example), the pets are doing extreme damage, and/or the tenants refuse to get rid of the animal.

If the tenant in this thread had said "can I have these animals added to our lease?", the Tribunal would probably adopt the position that that's a reasonable request (given that it's 25 acres), and that the owner would be unreasonable to refuse.

Therefore, in practice, the only thing the tenant is probably guilty of is failing to notify that they have more animals.

Even if the Tribunal found that the tenants were in violation of the lease, and that it wasn't reasonable for them to have more animals, the remedy to the owner would first be to request that the animals be removed within a reasonable period (e.g. two weeks), not terminate the lease as a first step.

The other violation is the "dogs inside issue", but the owners will have to be careful in raising that issue with regard to how they know there were dogs inside. The owners only had permission to go on the property to access a storage container. Unless the container's stored up against the house, looking in the windows is likely to be outside the scope of their permission to enter and they may be guilty of trespass.

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying this is my understanding of how it works in practice.

Got it, I allow 'one outside dog' in each of our leases as I feel that is fair and reasonable and it also allows us to charge a slightly higher rent as it can sometimes be difficult for people to find a rental property that allows this, but I still find it unreasonable that some tenants push this by keeping more animals than allowed when they signed what is meant to be a legally binding document (that they agreed to).
It just seems crazy to me.

 

[Ajturner]

Thanks guys.
Perp the issue I have with the animals in the paddock is it is not a very productive property and is way overstocked.it is capable of running a couple of small steers and even then they occasionally had to be supplement fed.the issue with over stocking is not only weed problems but also the animals are likely to go through, or break fences to get to more feed including the gardens and small trees in the house yard.
We wanted to avoid this problem by not allowing animals in the paddocks as its a potential headache.
The shipping container is located in a paddock yes but I knocked on the door to let the owners know that it was just me going down to the container as arranged and approved by them.
Thanks again for everyone's replies.

 

[Perp]

Perp the issue I have with the animals in the paddock is it is not a very productive property and is way overstocked.it is capable of running a couple of small steers and even then they occasionally had to be supplement fed.the issue with over stocking is not only weed problems but also the animals are likely to go through, or break fences to get to more feed including the gardens and small trees in the house yard.
We wanted to avoid this problem by not allowing animals in the paddocks as its a potential headache.

They sound like legitimate concerns, but can probably be overcome by outlining precise concerns to tenants and asking them to undertake to be responsible for any damage to fences, otherwise they have to remove the excess animals.

The main thing is that you can't go straight to eviction for a breach of the lease, without trying to come to some reasonable accommodation first.

If you're ever letting out the property again, I'd make it very clear via a lease provision that you're not letting out the whole lot, but only the "house yard". That way, they clearly have no right to have anything - including animals - anywhere else on the property.

 

[lizzie]

We recently had permission to access a storage container on the property and found that there was 5 dogs locked inside with no one home

I'm more concerned that the dogs were locked inside a shipping container with no one keeping an eye on them.

Were they trying to hide the dogs - or is this an RSPCA issue? Those things can get darn hot very quickly and smuggled humans have been known to die in them ... did the dogs have water and access to the outside? Were the Chickens locked in there with the dogs?

I live on 27 acres and know that without the stock animals the grass very quickly becomes a fire hazard ... even with 3 horses, hubby has to regularly slash paddocks.

 

[Perp]

I'm more concerned that the dogs were locked inside a shipping container with no one keeping an eye on them.

I read it that the landlords had permission to enter the property for the purposes of accessing the shipping container, but that the dogs were locked inside *the house*.

 

[lizzie]

I read it that the landlords had permission to enter the property for the purposes of accessing the shipping container, but that the dogs were locked inside *the house*.

Oh - that makes more sense ... I'm having a shocker day

 

[Perp]

Oh - that makes more sense ... I'm having a shocker day

Hope it looks up, and whether it does or not, that there's a lovely wine with your name on it at the end of the day.