Landlord and tenant; pets; pet deposit; pet fee; pet rent; effective date.
Summary
HB3389 would regulate how landlords in Oklahoma may charge tenants who keep pets. The bill allows a landlord to require either a pet deposit or a pet fee, but not both at the same time. A pet deposit would have to be refundable, paid once, tied to actual damage caused by the animal, and held in escrow. A pet fee would also be a one-time charge, but it would be nonrefundable and charged solely because a pet is on the premises, not because of damage.
The bill also prohibits pet rent, defined as a recurring payment for having a pet in a rental unit. If enacted, the measure would create a new section in Title 41 of the Oklahoma Statutes governing landlord-tenant relationships and would take effect November 1, 2026. Its practical effect would be to limit the types of pet-related charges landlords can impose and to standardize those charges under state law.
Impact
HB3389 would amend Oklahoma landlord-tenant law by adding a new statutory provision in Title 41 that specifically addresses pet-related charges in residential leases. It would restrict landlords to either a refundable, damage-based pet deposit or a nonrefundable one-time pet fee, while barring recurring pet rent and preventing a pet fee from being charged in addition to a pet deposit. The bill would affect landlords, tenants with pets, property managers, and lease drafting practices statewide.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and policy-focused rather than overtly contentious. The measure seems designed to clarify and limit pet-related rental charges, which may be viewed favorably by tenants with pets and by advocates for predictable housing costs. At the same time, it preserves some ability for landlords to recover pet-related costs through either a deposit or a fee.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the prohibition on pet rent, since landlords may prefer recurring charges to offset ongoing risk or administrative costs associated with pets. Another possible issue is the bill’s restriction that a landlord may not charge both a pet deposit and a pet fee, which limits flexibility in lease pricing. Tenants and housing advocates would likely support the consumer-protection aspect of the bill, while landlord interests may object to the limits on how pet-related costs can be structured.
Landlord and tenant; landlord's breach of rental agreement; providing tenant may bring action; liability for damages; withholding payment of rent in certain circumstances; procedure; effective date.
Landlord and tenant; authorizing court to refer eviction cases to mediation; modifying requirements for landlord recovery of rental dwelling; establishing procedure for certain complaints. Effective date.