Free Texas Pet Agreement Addendum

For an actual pet, yes. Texas Property Code Chapter 92 sets no cap on pet deposits, pet fees, or pet rent and prescribes no formula, so those amounts are a matter of what the lease and addendum say. What Chapter 92 does control is how money you hold is treated. Section 92.102 defines a security deposit as any advance of money, other than a rental application deposit or an advance payment of rent, that is intended primarily to secure performance under a lease of a dwelling. That is a description of the money’s function, not of the label you put on it.

Not automatically, because the name on the line is not what decides it. Section 92.102 defines a security deposit by purpose: any advance of money, other than a rental application deposit or an advance payment of rent, intended primarily to secure performance under the lease. Money collected up front against possible pet damage answers that description whatever the addendum calls it, and §92.101 applies the subchapter to all residential leases. Where a charge is a deposit in function, the §92.103 refund deadline and the §92.104(c) itemization duty travel with it. Draft the addendum so the character of each charge is stated rather than assumed.

Enough that each animal and each charge is still identifiable a year later. Name the individual animals authorized, with species, breed, weight, and identifying marks, because an addendum permitting a dog does not tell you which dog was approved. State each amount separately and say what it is, since §92.102 turns on what money is intended primarily to secure. Set the rules you will genuinely enforce, covering leash and common-area conduct, waste removal, noise, and whether an additional or replacement animal needs a new addendum. Both parties sign, and the addendum then operates as part of the lease.

Yes, within the ordinary deposit rules. Section 92.104(a) lets you deduct damages and charges for which the tenant is legally liable under the lease or as a result of breaching the lease, which reaches pet damage the addendum makes the tenant responsible for. Section 92.104(b) bars retaining any portion for normal wear and tear, defined in §92.001(4) as deterioration resulting from the intended use of a dwelling and excluding deterioration from negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse by the tenant, a household member, or a guest or invitee. Chewed trim and saturated flooring are not intended use; a slightly worn carpet path is.

No. Texas Human Resources Code §121.003(h) provides that a person with a total or partial disability who has or obtains a service animal is entitled to full and equal access to housing accommodations and may not be required to pay extra compensation or make a deposit for the animal, but is liable for damages done to the premises by the animal except for reasonable wear and tear. Federal law runs the same way: the illustration in 24 CFR §100.204(b) is that refusing a blind applicant with a seeing eye dog under a no-pets policy violates the reasonable-accommodation duty. Damage liability survives; the charges do not.

Treat it as carved out. Texas Human Resources Code §121.002(1) defines both assistance animal and service animal as a canine that is specially trained or equipped to help a person with a disability and that is used by a person with a disability, and §121.003(h) removes extra compensation and deposits for that animal. Apply no pet deposit, no pet fee, no pet rent, no breed restriction, and no weight limit to it, and do not make signing the pet addendum a condition of keeping it. Record the animal and the damage-responsibility term separately, since §121.003(h) preserves liability for damage beyond reasonable wear and tear.

The guidance changed; the law did not. HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity withdrew a set of guidance documents, among them FHEO 2020-01 on assessing a person’s request to have an animal as a reasonable accommodation and FHEO Notice 2013-01 on service animals and assistance animals, effective September 17, 2025, published at 91 FR 17291 on April 6, 2026. That notice states that any actions that do not comply with the text of the Fair Housing Act continue to be subject to enforcement by the Department. The statute at 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B) and the regulation at 24 CFR §100.204 are unchanged.

In a memorandum dated May 22, 2026, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity directed that, effective immediately, for complaints related to animal-related reasonable accommodations FHEO will find reasonable cause and recommend charges only for those cases involving animals trained to provide disability-related assistance. It adds that requests to waive pet policies for animals trained to perform specific disability-related services are presumptively reasonable, while requests for untrained emotional support animals are not. That is an enforcement-priority instruction to HUD staff, not an amendment of the Fair Housing Act, and the withdrawal notice states that nothing in it affects the rights of parties to seek redress in the proper court.