One Owner, Eleven Words, Four Applicants

Refuse, in writing, and put a lawful screening policy in its place.

• A "no kids" policy is familial status discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act. Section 804(c) also bars statements of preference or limitation in advertising or in the rental process, so even repeating the rule to applicants is a violation.
• Section 8 or source of income is not expressly protected under the federal Fair Housing Act or Idaho's statewide real property statute, but a blanket refusal can be attacked on a disparate-impact theory, may violate a local ordinance, and is a complaint magnet. Paula should check the city and county ordinances before answering.
• She should decline to transmit the instruction, document the refusal and the date, and tell Walt plainly that following it exposes both of them to a complaint and exposes her to license discipline.
• Offer the compliant alternative: published, uniform written criteria - income ratio, credit, rental history, occupancy, references - applied identically to every applicant, with the same screening company and the same records kept.

Two per bedroom is a presumption, not a shield.

• HUD has treated two persons per bedroom as a presumptively reasonable occupancy standard, but it is rebuttable. The inquiry is whether the standard is reasonable given the size and configuration of the unit and the specific circumstances.
• Here the unit is 900 sq ft with two bedrooms and the household is five - 2.5 per bedroom. That is close enough that a flat denial based only on the rule is likely to be treated as familial status discrimination.
• What Paula should do: verify the actual square footage and bedroom configuration; check any state or local occupancy limits; apply the same standard she applies to every applicant; and document a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason if she still denies. If a larger unit is available or coming available, offer it.
• She may not impose extra deposits, extra rent, or additional conditions that are not imposed on childless applicants. She also may not steer this family to another building or neighborhood.

Grant the accommodation; do not answer the second question the way it was asked.

Assistance animal:

• An assistance animal is not a pet. Reasonable-accommodation obligations apply even to a strict no-pets lease, and HUD's guidance is that no pet deposit, pet fee, or pet rent may be charged for an assistance animal. The tenant remains liable for actual damage.
• When the disability is not readily apparent, the owner may request reliable documentation, but may not ask about the nature of the disability or demand a specific form. A letter from an online service is thin evidence; Paula may ask for verification from a treating professional with a real relationship to the tenant, but she may not simply ignore or auto-reject the request. Process it promptly - delay functions as denial.
• The dog still has to be under the handler's control. A direct threat or repeated damage supports removal of the animal, not of the tenant.

"Quiet building" question:

• Do not confirm, deny, or characterize who lives in the building. That answer is steering, and a statement of preference about children is itself prohibited.
• Respond with objective facts: unit mix, square footage, house rules, quiet hours, parking, noise complaints policy. Then apply the same criteria to that applicant as to everyone else.