Tenants with six emotional support animals evicted for ‘breaking rules’ — but a year later, former landlord’s vengeful act cost him $20K in court

The cats eased her loneliness and encouraged her to go on walks, while the rats kept her playful and active at home.

PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO

(L) A woman sitting with laptop and pets near cardboard boxes, (R) Judge with wooden gavel and a lot of dollar bills close-up. (Representative Cover Image Source: Getty Images | (L) Westend61, (R) megaflopp)

A family living as tenants in a rented apartment in Wisconsin was issued an eviction notice for keeping six emotional support animals. Ashlee Crosno and her family were entangled in a legal dispute with their landlords that began in the spring of 2022 after claiming they were discriminated against for keeping two cats and three rats as assistance animals. A year later, the federal court ordered the landlords to pay Crosno $20,000 in an unexpected settlement after the court judge deduced their questionable act.

Cats on top of a woman. (Representative Image Source: Getty Images | Image taken by Mayte Torres)

Crosno from Appleton is set to receive the grand amount after the property managers of her home of eight years restricted her from keeping emotional support pets. Landlords Tammy and Ramiro Estrada were against tenant Crosno’s emotional need for pets recommended by a doctor to help her declining mental health conditions. She lived in the property with her husband and minor children. Later, she adopted a calico and white cat named Chloe, a black cat named Ruthless, and three rats, Christopher, Pebbles, and Butters, the tenant wrote in her official complaint.

Elderly woman poignantly look at eviction notice on house door. (Representative Image Source: Getty Images| Photo by Jeremy Poland) — Elderly woman poignantly look at eviction notice on house door. (Representative Image Source: Getty Images | Photo by Jeremy Poland)

Each pet provided specific benefits that helped Crosno with her mental health struggle. The cats soothed her, eased her loneliness, and encouraged her to go on walks, while the rats kept her playful and active at home. She explained the purpose of each pet, but the Estradas said only one emotional support animal was allowed on their property. Crosno stated in her complaint that the landlords were indifferent to pets and support animals. The Estradas were not to be convinced, believing the tenants were "breaking rules." They sent a legally updated agreement about assistance animals via an attorney and forced them to evict their home under “unreasonable conditions.”

No Pets Allowed Sign at Grocery Store. (Representative Image Source: Getty | Grace Cary)

It only went further south from there as Crosno adopted a therapy dog to assist with a trauma related to showering. The landlords allegedly threatened the family on social media and tried to call the cops on an investigator from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. When the Estradas declined to renew Crosno’s lease, and also interfered with her prospects of renting a new home. The landlords allegedly contacted the owners of Crosno’s new apartment and tried to create misinformation about her husband’s past professions in September 2023. Crosno realized they were violating her civil rights and filed a federal complaint in November 2024.

Judge holding gavel in courtroom.(Representative Image Source: Getty Images | Chris Ryan) — Judge holding gavel in courtroom. (Representative Image Source: Getty Images | Chris Ryan)

Following a long and tedious legal battle, the case culminated with a $20,000 settlement in federal court. The Estradas were also required to complete training in accommodating disabilities under the Fair Housing Act, per a United States Attorney's Office, Wisconsin report. They were accused of discriminating against and not accommodating a disability, of a person, along with threatening a tenant for exercising a protected right. The federal case officially concluded in August 2025. As per a report by ESA Doctors, a landlord cannot force a tenant to get rid of their emotional support animal regardless of any no-pet policy. The only exception remains when the animal poses a direct threat to the safety or health of other parties involved.