# ESA Letter in Vermillion, SD: Eviction and $1,000

> SDCL 43-32-36 lets a landlord evict and charge up to a thousand dollars for knowingly fraudulent documentation. In the state's most rented city, that is close by.

- Source: https://supportanimal.com/blog/south-dakota-emotional-support-animal/vermillion/
- Publisher: Support Animal (supportanimal.com)
- Updated: 2026-09-05
- License note: informational content; not legal or medical advice.

## Key facts

- Population: 11,877
- Households renting: 58%
- Typical pet deposit (as a pet): Barred as accommodation
- Typical pet rent (as a pet): $20-$40/mo for pets
- Breed/weight limits common: yes
- Pet fees, deposits, and breed limits with a valid ESA letter: none (FHA reasonable accommodation)

## The most rented city in South Dakota

Vermillion has 2,500 renting households out of 4,312 occupied homes, **58.0
percent** on the 2020–2024 American Community Survey five-year estimate.
That is the highest renter share of any of the state's twenty largest
cities, ahead of Brookings at 52.3 percent, and more than twenty-six points
above the 31.4 percent statewide figure.

Median gross rent is $764, second lowest of those twenty, about nineteen
percent under the $946 state median. The 2024 Census estimate puts the city
at 11,877, twelfth in South Dakota. The University of South Dakota drives
both the share and the August-to-May shape of the market.

A town where nearly three in five households rent, most of them students on
nine-month leases, is also where certificate sellers spend their advertising
money. Which brings this page to a section most South Dakota pages mention
in passing.

## The section that has a price on it

SDCL 43-32-36:

> "If a person is found to have **knowingly** made a false claim of having a disability
> that requires the use of a service animal or assistance animal or of **knowingly**
> providing fraudulent supporting documentation in connection with such a claim, a lessor
> may evict a lessee and the lessor is entitled to a **damage fee, not to exceed one
> thousand dollars**, from a lessee if the lessee provides fraudulent disability
> documentation indicating a disability requiring the use of a service animal or assistance
> animal."

Eviction, and up to a thousand dollars, in a city where the median rent is $764 a month.
The fee alone is more than a month's rent for most Vermillion tenants.

Most states have nothing like this. South Dakota enacted it in 2018 as part of the same
act that created the documentation rules — SL 2018, ch 259 — so it arrived alongside the
standard it enforces.

## What "knowingly" does, and it does a lot

The word appears twice, attached to both branches, and it is a state-of-mind
requirement.

**Not within the section**: a request that is genuine and unsuccessful. A landlord who
disagrees with a clinician's judgment. Documentation that turns out to be insufficient
under SDCL 43-32-35. A tenant who misunderstood what was needed. None of those is a
knowingly false claim, and none is knowingly fraudulent documentation.

**Within it**: a claim of disability the person knew to be untrue, or a document the person
knew to be manufactured.

That distinction is the whole protection for an honest tenant, and it is
worth knowing because the fear of 43-32-36 keeps people from asking at all.
Asking, in good faith, with real documentation, is not the conduct this
section is about.

Nor is retaliation for asking lawful. SDCL 20-13-26 separately reaches threats and
reprisals against someone asserting a right under the human rights chapter.

## The section you hit first, though

Here is the practical point most Vermillion tenants miss. If your documentation came from a
certificate site, you never get to the "knowingly" question — because SDCL 43-32-35 has
already disposed of the request:

> "The documentation shall originate from a licensed health care provider **who does not
> operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance
> animals.**"

A site whose entire South Dakota activity is issuing certificates for
animals is described by that clause. Its documentation does not satisfy the
section. The request fails on the paperwork standard before anyone starts
asking what you knew.

So the sequence, for a student who bought a certificate in August, is
usually: request refused under 43-32-35, no eviction, no fee, and a semester
spent trying to fix a problem that a real appointment would have prevented.

And the sequence for someone who knew the document was manufactured can be
worse than that, which is why the two sections belong on the same page.

## What the documentation is supposed to contain

Two confirmations, again from 43-32-35:

1. **Your disability.**
2. **"The relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested
   accommodation."**

A letter that names a condition and stops fails the second half on its face,
whoever signed it. This is the most common defect in documentation that is
otherwise honest: a real clinician, a real patient, and no sentence
connecting the two things the statute asks about.

## What the landlord may ask for

SDCL 43-32-34 gives them the right expressly, unless the disability or the disability-related
need is "readily apparent or already known" to them. In a purpose-built student block with
new tenants every August, that exception is almost never available.

## Where the right itself comes from

Not from the sections set out above, which govern proof and not entitlement.
It comes from the federal Fair Housing Act at **42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)**,
and from SDCL 20-13-23.7, which calls for good faith efforts at reasonable
accommodation in housing short of undue hardship.

Anything charged for the animal is a separate question, answered by SDCL 20-13-20(2)'s bar on
treating a disabled tenant differently in the terms, conditions or privileges of a tenancy. SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps everything the
landlord holds at one month's rent "however denominated," which at Vermillion's $764 median
is a small number and worth protecting anyway.

## The clock on a nine-month lease

SDCL 20-13-31 allows 180 days from the refusal, with no discovery language.
A refusal in October is still live in April; a refusal in April expires in
October, when you may be somewhere else entirely. Date the request and the
refusal in writing at the time.

## What a leasing office in August is actually checking

Not your diagnosis, and not your animal.

They are checking the letterhead. A student market that signs several
hundred beds in a fortnight sees the same certificate layouts repeatedly,
and the source of the document is the fastest thing to assess.

Which means a determination from a clinician who treats you clears the first
check without anyone thinking about it, and a purchased certificate fails it
before the substance is read. That is not unfairness on the landlord's part;
it is SDCL 43-32-35 being applied exactly as written.

## Doing it the way the statute contemplates

Start with a clinician you already see. If you are a student with a genuine clinical relationship at
the university's counselling service, that is a licensed health care provider whose South Dakota
operation is plainly not "solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals."

The friction is real and specific. Campus services run semester-long
waitlists, they are configured for short-course counselling rather than for
writing disability determinations, and a clinician who has seen you twice
may quite properly decline to make a disability finding. Off campus, Clay
County has very little private psychiatric capacity, and the nearest
alternatives are Sioux Falls or across the river.

Where that route is closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination
arranged on purpose: somebody licensed assesses whether a disability exists
and whether this animal answers it, then either writes the determination or
explains that they cannot. Both endings are real, and the second one is what
tells you the first was worth something.

In the most rented city in South Dakota, the difference between a
determination and a certificate is not a matter of quality. It is the
difference between a document SDCL 43-32-35 accepts and one it was written
to describe, with SDCL 43-32-36 sitting one section further on.

## What Vermillion landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not require documentation at all where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them, SDCL 43-32-34, second sentence.
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, SDCL 20-13-20(2). A pet deposit or monthly pet charge on a required accommodation is caught here.
- May not take a security deposit above one month's rent "however denominated", SDCL 43-32-6.1, so a pet fee cannot be stacked on top of a full deposit by renaming it.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an assistance animal, SDCL 43-32-34. This is an express statutory right and arguing that a South Dakota landlord may not ask is simply wrong.
- May insist the documentation confirm both the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal, and that it come from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in South Dakota solely to certify animals, SDCL 43-32-35.
- Must make good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate a person with a disability in housing, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship, SDCL 20-13-23.7, with punitive damages available under SDCL 20-13-35.1.
- Must return the deposit or give written reasons within twenty-one days of termination, and forfeits all right to withhold anything by failing to, SDCL 43-32-24.
- May evict and claim a damage fee of up to one thousand dollars where a tenant knowingly makes a false claim of disability or knowingly supplies fraudulent documentation, SDCL 43-32-36.
- Is not required by the chapter to modify the property, incur additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care, SDCL 20-13-21.1. Waiving a no-pets rule asks for none of those things.

## How to get an ESA letter in Vermillion

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in Vermillion. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for South Dakota clients who reviews your situation in a telehealth evaluation. (Telehealth evaluation)
3. **Complete your evaluation**, The professional evaluates whether an emotional support animal alleviates symptoms of a condition recognized in the DSM-5. Honest evaluations, not everyone qualifies. (Most of Our Applicants Qualify)
4. **Receive your signed letter**, Your letter arrives on the professional's letterhead with their license number: the documentation South Dakota landlords may lawfully request. (Typically within days of approval)
5. **Send it to your landlord**, Submit the letter with a short reasonable-accommodation request. Pet fees, pet deposits, and breed limits no longer apply to your animal in Vermillion. (Protection under FHA + state law)

## Conditions that can qualify for an ESA

No fixed government list exists. A licensed professional evaluates whether an animal alleviates symptoms of a DSM-5-recognized condition, commonly:

- Generalized anxiety disorder
- Major depressive disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Panic disorder
- Social anxiety disorder
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Bipolar disorder
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
- Phobias with housing impact
- Chronic stress affecting daily function

## Housing help in Vermillion

- [City of Vermillion](https://www.vermillion.us/) (city government)
- [SD Division of Human Rights](https://dlr.sd.gov/human_rights/default.aspx) (state civil rights agency)
- [Dakota Plains Legal Services](https://www.dpls.org/) (legal aid)
- [Disability Rights South Dakota](https://drsdlaw.org/) (disability rights org)

## Frequently asked questions

### What is the actual penalty in South Dakota for a fake ESA letter?

Eviction, plus money. Under SDCL 43-32-36 a lessor may remove a lessee found to have knowingly asserted a false disability requiring an assistance animal, or to have knowingly handed over fraudulent supporting documentation, and is entitled to a damage fee capped at one thousand dollars, in a city whose median gross rent is $764 a month.

### What does "knowingly" mean for a request that just fails?

It means the section does not reach it. A request that is genuine and unsuccessful is not a knowingly false claim, and a document from a clinician who assessed you and got it wrong is not knowingly fraudulent. The word is a state-of-mind requirement and it is the difference between losing an argument and being evicted with a fee attached.

### I bought a certificate online. Am I inside SDCL 43-32-36?

That depends on facts this page cannot know, and it is the wrong question to be asking at that point. The right question is SDCL 43-32-35: the documentation must originate from a licensed health care provider "who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." A purchased certificate from a site with no other South Dakota activity fails that requirement before anyone reaches 43-32-36, which means the request fails anyway.

### Why is this a bigger issue in Vermillion than elsewhere?

Because 58.0 percent of households here rent, the highest share in South Dakota, and because student markets are where certificate sellers concentrate their advertising. The combination puts a large number of first-time renters within reach of a product the state's own statute describes and excludes.

### Can a Vermillion landlord evict me just for asking?

No. SDCL 43-32-36 requires a finding that the person knowingly made a false claim or knowingly provided fraudulent documentation. Asking for an accommodation and being refused is not within the section, and neither is asking with documentation that turns out to be insufficient. Separately, retaliation for asserting a right under chapter 20-13 is itself reached by SDCL 20-13-26.

### What should the letter actually contain?

Two confirmations, under SDCL 43-32-35: your disability, and "the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation." A letter naming a condition without connecting it to the animal fails the second half on its face, whoever signed it.

### How long do I have if a request is refused mid-semester?

180 days from the refusal, under SDCL 20-13-31, with no discovery language in the section. On a nine-month lease that window will often still be open after you have moved home for the summer, but only if you dated the request and the refusal in writing when they happened.

---

Get evaluated by a licensed provider: https://my.supportanimal.com/qualify?sa_source=blog&sa_medium=blog&sa_campaign=esa-guides&sa_content=markdown&ref=blog&sa_term=south-dakota-emotional-support-animal%2Fvermillion