^ Sherilynn, that is the argument I would make as the
seller of the property. I may argue that the pet fee is part of the administration costs of screening the animal and is fully earned upon move in.
If I were the
buyer of the property, I would say that the non-refundable pet fee is really collected because "the pet may cause extra wear and tear to the property" which is really a current liability which is offset by the non-refundable deposit. While the damage is accumulated and unremediated during the tenancy, it is never actually resolved until the tenant moves out. Although the deposit is non-refundable, it is still
unearned. The whole purpose of the deposit is to offset the cost of remediating the potential damage, which is not actually repaired until move out. In effect, the pet deposit is a prepaid asset account that offsets a current liability being pet damage.
Both sides have merit
I couldn't find a good court case to point you to but it's just negotiation anyway, not a court argument.