I wonder if a lease could legally prohibit a service dog - and, even if not permitted under MO law, the fact that he was a "guest" of the lessee could change that.
I have so many question's and it is just a wonder why the reporter does have the same questions.
The idea that someone who move all he has left, to a family member who did not want the dog concerns me.
Why, I do not know, but it is part of the puzzle here. Maybe there was poor communication? Maybe Wyrick thought if he brought Shuma they would make an exception. Perhaps it is the least issue. I understand that but so many in the country have made adjustment's to help those who have suffered from the hurricanes, wouldn't a no dog clause in a least deserve the same consideration.
Actually there are all kinds of folks who exploit those of the hurricane why is this different.
Wyrick was injured in a while working at his contruction job. He has difficulty bending and such. Shuma has become an extra set of hands. I do not think he is a formal service dog in the legal sence. Nevertheless he is providing a service to his master.
This is a very frustrating story to be sure.
Thanks for the comment.