Tristan’s Landlord-Tenant Law Blog
Back to Basics – A Guide to Evicting a Tenant
This blog post was written by Atty. Madeline Worgull, edited by Atty. Tristan R. Pettit
When a tenant stops paying rent, a landlord cannot simply demand the keys back or change the locks. This blog post provides a step-by-step guide to the eviction process for new landlords, focusing specifically on notice requirements and removal procedures under Wis. Stat. Ch. 704 for non-payment of rent. Our team has previously published blog posts addressing individual aspects of the eviction process; this blog brings those concepts together in one place to help landlords understand the overall process from start to finish.
Step One: Choose the correct Notice and fill it out correctly
The type of tenancy determines which notice the landlord must serve. Wisconsin allows several notice periods depending on the situation, including 5-, 14-, 28-, and 30-day notices. Some of those notices are curable while others are not.
A right-to-cure notice gives the tenant a set period to cure the breach (e.g., pay past-due rent), and if the breach is cured, their tenancy continues. A notice without a right to cure terminates the tenancy at the end of the notice period.
Make sure you properly complete the notice with the tenant’s name and address, and it is best practice to itemize the past-due rent and indicate which month’s rent was not paid.
Please refer to Wis. Stat. § 704.17 for more details.
Step Two: Properly Serve the Notice
A notice is effective only if it is properly served. Under Wisconsin law, acceptable service methods include:
- Certified mail - when serving a notice on a tenant via mail, Wis. Stat. § 704.19(7)(c) deems notice to be served two days after mailing if addressed to a location within Wisconsin.
- Personal delivery to the tenant.
- By leaving a copy of the notice at the tenant's address in the presence of a competent member of the tenant's family, who is at least 14 years old, and was informed of the contents of the notice.
- By leaving a copy of the notice with a competent person apparently in charge of the premises and by mailing a copy to the tenant at their last known address.
Improper service of a notice is a common reason that landlords’ eviction cases are dismissed, even when the rent remains unpaid.
Please refer to Wis. Stat. § 704.21 for more details.
Step Three: Allow the Notice Period to Run
After service, the landlord must allow the full statutory notice period to expire (whether 5, 14, 28, or 30 days, depending on the notice served, and don’t forget the extra 2 days if serving via certified mail).
If the tenant cures within the timeframe and the notice allows a cure, a landlord cannot file for eviction against the tenant, as the tenancy has not been terminated. But if the tenant neither cures nor vacates, the landlord may move forward with a court filing.
Step Four: File an Eviction Action in Small Claims Court
Once the notice period expires without payment or vacating, the landlord may file an eviction action in small claims court in the county in which the rental property is located. To initiate the lawsuit, the landlord must file a Summons and Complaint, which provides formal notice to the tenant. The Summons is a mandatory court-produced form that you must use. You can draft your own complaint, if you wish, or use the one provided.
The first appearance is typically an initial hearing, referred to as a “return date” in some counties. At this hearing, the landlord will appear before a judge or court commissioner. Depending on county procedure, outcomes may include:
- Entry of a judgment of eviction
- Scheduling of a trial
- Refer to mediation
Eviction actions generally seek:
Restitution of the premises (the “eviction” or return of the rental property to the landlord); and
Money damages, which may include past-due rent, other amounts owed under the rental agreement, the actual cost to repair damage to the rental property, and/or statutory holdover costs.
Even if a Court has ordered the tenant out of the property, if the tenant refuses to leave, the landlord must hire the Sheriff to remove the tenant and all other occupants and return possession to the landlord. A landlord who takes actions like changing locks, removing doors, or disconnecting utilities will be in a world of hurt, as those types of actions constitute unlawful self-help evictions and may result in the landlord being sued by the tenant (and if the landlord loses, they will ordered to pay the tenant double their damages and the tenant’s attorney’s fees) and/or a complaint being filed by the tenant with the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protections (DATCP). DATCP has the authority to order the landlord to pay fines, return money improperly taken from the tenant, enjoin a landlord, either temporarily or permanently, and even charge the landlord with a crime.
Step Five: Obtain a Writ of Restitution
At the initial hearing, the judge or commissioner will either grant or deny a judgment of eviction. If granted, the court must immediately authorize a Writ of Restitution, a document that the landlord files with the Sheriff and that authorizes the Sheriff to physically remove the tenant from the property.
Once granted, the writ must be filed with the sheriff within 30 days of the judgment, or else it is void.
In Wisconsin, once the Writ is filed with the Sheriff and any applicable fee is paid, the Sheriff must execute the writ within 10 business days. Only the Sheriff may carry out the removal of a tenant and other occupants from the rental property; landlords may not remove the tenant themselves.
Many counties in Wisconsin have different procedures for obtaining, purchasing, and executing the Writ of Restitution. Landlords should contact the Sheriff’s Department in the county where the rental property is located to find out exactly what they are required to file, pay, and do to assist the Sheriff.
A new landlord who is going through their first eviction and their first execution of the Writ will want to ask the Sheriff about the process by which the tenant’s belongings will be removed, the cost for doing so, the storage of those belongings, what the landlord is responsible for paying, and how they will be charged.
This blog post focuses on the big-picture process of evicting a tenant in Wisconsin. There are many smaller, nuanced laws and local rules, with variations from county to county, that must be followed to lawfully take back possession of the rental property.
This blog post was written by Atty. Madeline Worgull, edited by Atty. Tristan R. Pettit.
Landlords Should Expect Increased Government Scrutiny of Rental Housing Fees
Over the last several years, I have seen a substantial increase in government scrutiny, both federal and state, regarding the fees being charged by landlords and property management companies. In my opinion, this trend will only continue to grow in intensity and scope.
Historically, many landlords viewed fees as a relatively minor issue. Application fees, administrative fees, amenity fees, re-rental fees, utility billing fees, convenience fees, technology fees, move-in fees, lease renewal fees, and similar charges became increasingly common throughout the rental housing industry. I was even made aware of a landlord who charged a tenant a $25 fee to meet with the property manager to discuss the 5-Day Notice the tenant had been served. Now, that is completely ridiculous.
However, federal and state regulators are now paying very close attention to those fees. Wisconsin’s view is that fees charged to a tenant should only reimburse a landlord for its actual out-of-pocket costs.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has made so-called “junk fees” a major enforcement priority. The FTC even issued a request for public input regarding hidden and misleading fees, including fees charged in the rental housing industry.
Additionally, a coalition of 27 state Attorneys General recently sent a letter to the FTC urging the adoption of nationwide rules regarding rental housing fees. The letter specifically addresses concerns about mandatory fees that allegedly increase the true cost of renting housing.
Government agencies are not simply talking about these issues. They are actively bringing enforcement actions
For example, the FTC and the Department of Justice announced a significant settlement with Greystar, one of the nation’s largest property management companies, over allegations of failing to disclose fees and making misleading representations about the true cost of apartment rentals. Greystar agreed to pay $24 million and to stop deceptive advertising practices.
Likewise, the FTC also filed a major enforcement action against Invitation Homes concerning alleged hidden fees and deceptive practices. The proposed settlement of that case involved Invitation Homes paying $48 million, agreeing to advertise true rental prices, and stopping other alleged unlawful behavior against renters.
Whether landlords agree with the government’s position or not, landlords should understand where the industry is heading. The pendulum is starting to swing back in the opposite direction
One of the biggest areas of concern involves whether landlords are adequately disclosing all mandatory fees that increase either:
(a) the tenant’s total monthly housing cost, or
(b) the tenant’s total move-in costs.
DATCP’s view is that anytime you publish or advertise the rent amount for a rental property, including talking to a rental applicant over the phone, landlords and property management companies must also disclose any other mandatory fees that increase the total annual and/or monthly rent. Failure to do this violates ATCP 134.09(9), which states that no landlord may “Fail to disclose, in connection with any representation of rent amount, the existence of any non-rent charges which will increase the total amount payable by the tenant during the tenancy.”
I had a client who displayed all rental ranges for the various types of rentals it offered on one page of their website and all mandatory fees on another. DATCP felt that my client was misrepresenting the total monthly cost by failing to include the additional mandatory fees on the same web page as the rent amounts. My client was required to combine the two pages.
But it is not just the failure to disclose fees. It is also the nature and amount of the fees.
Landlords should also understand that regulators are increasingly scrutinizing the nature and amount of fees themselves. In my experience, DATCP’s general position is that fees should only reimburse landlords for actual out-of-pocket costs and should not function as additional profit centers.
Importantly, this increased scrutiny is not limited to massive national companies.
My firm represents landlords and property management companies throughout Wisconsin who are being investigated by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (“DATCP”) regarding fee practices and fee disclosures. Most of the Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) we have defended in the last two years have focused largely on my clients’ charging of rental fees and the amounts of those fees. This is not theoretical. It is happening right now.
Both federal and state governments are clearly moving toward increased investigation and regulation of rental fees. Landlords and property management companies that review their practices now and take any necessary actions will likely be in a much better position than those that wait until they face a DATCP investigation or are defending a lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office.
The Importance of Your Landlord Community
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Gary Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
Have you been considering joining your next local Landlord Association meeting? There is no better time than now to see what they are about. Attorney Pettit, Attorney Hayden, and Attorney Koch are all active in local Landlord Associations, so, if for no other reason, you could come say “hi”!
Even if the only thing you’re doing is following this Blog, you’ve no doubt seen that a lot has been happening in Wisconsin Landlord/Tenant law recently. Landlord Associations are your advanced ticket to what’s going on and what is expected to come.
There’s no bigger topic at meetings right now than the Koble case. Landlord Associations aren’t only discussing the case and its impact, but they are also actively fighting to overturn it. Several Landlord Associations (the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, the Apartment Association of Northeast Wisconsin, the Fox Valley Apartment Association, the Kenosha Landlord Association, the Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin, the Apartment Owners and Managers Association of Wisconsin and the National Apartment Association) joined the Wisconsin Realtors Association to submit an Amicus Curiae (“Friend of the Court”) Brief in the Supreme Court in the Koble case.
Furthermore, several Landlord Associations have assisted in drafting a bill in the Wisconsin Legislature to clarify the statutes that have given rise to Koble-esque suits. As of the writing of this post, that bill has passed both the Senate and Assembly, but unfortunately, the Governor vetoed it.
Historically, Landlord Associations assisted in implementing the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 amendments to the Landlord-Tenant statutes.
All of this is only possible because of the people who comprise the Landlord Associations. Members are the most valuable resources. Plus, every meeting I’ve ever attended has had great camaraderie, good speakers, and excellent snacks!
So, if you’ve ever considered attending a meeting (or even if you haven’t), check out one of the above-mentioned Landlord Associations, or find the closest Association to you, and stop in to say “hi.” You won’t regret it!
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Gary Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
Manufactured and Mobile Home Communities Are Different — And the Statutes Make That Clear
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Madeline Worgull of Pettit Law Group S.C.
One of the most common mistakes we see at Pettit Law Group is assuming that all landlord–tenant relationships in Wisconsin are governed by the same rules. They are not.
If you own or operate a manufactured or mobile home community, your obligations go well beyond Wis. Stat. ch. 704 and ATCP 134. You are also subject to Wis. Stat. § 710.15, which significantly restricts lease terms, termination rights, and nonrenewal practices. You also must follow ATCP 125.
Here are the key differences that you should understand.
Leases Are Mandatory and Must Be at Least One Year
Unlike traditional residential rentals, every agreement to rent a manufactured or mobile home site must be by a written lease for term.
That lease must:
· be a minimum term of one year, unless the resident requests a shorter term and the operator agrees (See § 710.15(1m))
· include all community rules that substantially affect the rights or duties of residents or operators (See § 710.15(2))
· disclose whether the community contains an emergency shelter, and community rules must explain its location and use if one exists (§ 710.15(2m)).
You Can’t Discriminate Based on the Age of the Home
Section 710.15(3) imposes strict limits on an operator's discretion regarding the condition or age of a home.
An operator may not:
· deny entry into or renewal of a lease based on the age of a mobile or manufactured home (§ 710.15(3)(a))
· require removal of a home from the community because of its age (§ 710.15(3)(b))
Change in Ownership Is Not Grounds for Removal
Similarly, an operator may not require removal of a mobile or manufactured home solely because ownership or occupancy has changed or will change. See Wis. Stat. § 710.15(4).
While an operator may not require the removal of a home solely because ownership or occupancy has changed, this does not prohibit the operator from lawfully screening prospective tenants or refusing to enter into an initial lease for any other lawful reason (§ 710.15(4), (4m)).
Nonrenewal Requires “Cause”
In a typical residential rental under Wis. Stat. ch. 704, landlords generally have greater flexibility to terminate a tenancy or refuse to renew a lease. This is where mobile home communities differ most.
Under Wis. Stat. § 710.15(5m), a resident’s tenancy may not be terminated, and a lease may not be nonrenewed, except for one of the listed permissible grounds:
1. Failure to pay rent due, or failure to pay taxes or any other charges due for which the community owner or operator may be liable.
2. Disorderly conduct that disrupts the rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment and use of the premises.
3. Vandalism or commission of waste of the property.
4. A breach of any term of the lease.
5. Violation of community rules that endangers the health or safety of others or disrupts the right to the peaceful enjoyment and use of the premises by others, after written notice to cease the violation has been delivered to the resident or occupant.
6. Violation of federal, state, or local laws, rules, or ordinances relating to mobile homes or manufactured homes after written notice to cease the violation has been delivered to the resident or occupant.
7. The community owner or operator seeks to retire the community permanently from the rental housing market.
8. The community owner or operator is required to discontinue use of the community for rental because of action taken against the community owner or operator by local or state building or health authorities, and it is necessary for the premises to be vacated to satisfy the relief sought by the action.
9. The physical condition of the mobile home or manufactured home presents a threat to the health or safety of its occupants or others in the community or, by its physical appearance, disrupts the right to the enjoyment and use of the community by others.
10. Refusal to sign a lease.
11. Material misrepresentation in the application for tenancy.
12. Other good cause.
If the reason is not listed, termination or nonrenewal is mot likely not permitted.
Why the Law Is Stricter
The Legislature recognized that mobile home residents often own their homes, face high costs to move them, and cannot easily relocate. As a result, § 710.15 prioritizes long-term housing stability.
It should be noted that this newsletter focuses on the big-picture rules governing mobile home communities under Wis. Stat. § 710.15. If you have any questions, reach out to us at Pettit Law Group. We’re happy to help ensure you are operating your community correctly.
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Madeline Worgull of Pettit Law Group S.C.
What Does HUD’s Decision To Revoke its 30-Day Notice Requirement Mean?
UPDATE: March 12, 2026 - From the National Leased Housing Association, March 12, 2026 - HUD will publish an interim final rule tomorrow in the Federal Register, indefinitely delaying the effective date of the interim final rule, revoking the 30-day Notification Requirement Prior to Termination of Lease for Nonpayment of Rent rule. The interim final rule, published on February 26, 2026, was slated to become effective March 30, 2026. HUD will now treat the interim final rule as a proposed rule, which will only be effective after public comment and the publication of a final rule. In announcing the delay, HUD cited recent litigation challenging the interim final rule. From the National Leased Housing Association
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On February 26, 2026, HUD announced it released its interim final rule rescinding the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement for project-based rental assistance (PBRA) and public housing agencies (PHA). HUD’s rule becomes effective on March 30, 2026.
Good news? Not really. First, HUD’s rule doesn't apply to market-rate housing. It only applies to PBRA’s and PHA’s. Second, HUD’s rule doesn’t change federal law; therefore, the CARES Act remains the law.
Landlords must keep in mind that this is only a HUD rule—much like a similar decision issued by Fannie and Freddie earlier—it does not repeal the CARES Act.
As I write this blog post, the CARES Act is still the current federal law. Eviction courts can still dismiss your eviction lawsuit if you choose to serve a 5-Day or 14-Day Notice for a tenant’s failure to pay rent instead of a 30-Day Notice, if your rental property is a “covered” dwelling. While Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled that the CARES Act no longer applies in their state, Wisconsin has not.
This is worth repeating again:
HUD’s rule does NOT apply to market-rate housing.
HUD’s rule does NOT repeal the CARES Act.
Until new legislation officially ends the CARES Act, landlords should continue issuing the 30-day Notice if their rental property meets the definition of a “covered” property. Only Congress can end the CARES Act - until then, compliance is the safest route.
FYI, it appears that legislation was proposed in 2025 to end the CARES Act.
T
Choosing A Registered Agent For Your Company
This blog post was written by Atty. David J. Espin of Pettit Law Group S.C.
One of the most frequently asked questions I get when I’m assisting clients with forming limited liability companies is: What are a registered agent and a registered office, and why do they matter?
Wis. Stat. § 183.0115 states that every Wisconsin limited liability company “shall designate and maintain a registered office in this state,” and that the “designation of a registered agent is an affirmation of fact by the limited liability company . . . that the agent has consented to serve.” The registered office must have a physical street address located in Wisconsin, along with a valid email, and the registered agent can be any of the following:
1. A natural person who resides in this state and whose business office is identical with the registered office;
2. A domestic corporation, nonstock corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, or limited liability partnership whose business office is identical with the registered office; or
3. A foreign corporation, nonstock corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, or registered limited liability partnership if that entity is authorized to transact business in this state and the entity’s business office is identical to the registered office.
Any party that wishes to file a lawsuit against an LLC must serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the company’s designated registered agent at the registered office. The primary duty of a registered agent, in turn, is to provide the company with any “process, notice, or demand pertaining to the company” that is served or received by the agent.
If a timely response to a legal notice is not made, the party filing the lawsuit may be entitled to a “default judgment,” meaning the company could forfeit its right to contest the lawsuit in court. So, it is extremely important to select a registered agent who will forward any legal notices immediately upon receipt, so the company has an opportunity to retain counsel in time to file an appropriate response and preserve its legal rights.
Additionally, if a company changes its registered office, it must file an amendment to its articles of organization with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions to update its registered office address. Otherwise, these vitally important legal notices will continue to be served at the old address, and the company may not receive them in time to respond.
This blog post was written by Atty. David J. Espin or Pettit Law Group S.C.
PLEASE ATTEND Capitol Day on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, in Madison
Good Morning Everyone
I am personally inviting you to attend an EXTREMELY important event -- Capitol Day on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, in Madison. We need hundreds of people in attendance to demonstrate to legislators that we care.
The Koble issue remains unresolved as I write this. Koble is the single most important issue facing landlords in Wisconsin. If you are not aware of Koble, please read one of my earlier blog posts about this issue.
The draft legislation dealing with Koble is not yet complete.
We had a great turnout last year, and we need just as many people to attend this year. Our work is not yet complete.
We need to continue the momentum that started at last year’s Capitol Day.
Below is the flyer for Capitol Day from the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc. (RPA).
Please do whatever you can to ensure your attendance. Please also register your attendance on the RPA website (or any other trade association that you belong to – see bottom of the flyer for participating associations) and bring as many of your staff and other landlords as you can.
I cannot stress how important it is that we have a massive turnout.
Thanks for your consideration, and I hope to see you there.
T
When Will Your Mailing Be Postmarked?
Written by Atty. Jennifer M. Hayden of Pettit Law Group S.C.]
Effective December 24, 2025, the USPS will adopt a “final rule” that, along with the implementation of the Regional Transportation Optimization (“RTO”) initiative, is likely to result in the date a mailing is postmarked being a day or more later than the date the mailing is delivered to USPS, unless you have it postmarked by hand by a USPS retail worker when you drop it off.
The postmark on mailings sent via USPS reflects the date of “first automated processing” at a “regional processing center,” rather than the date the mail was dropped off at a retail location. For mail sent outside the 50-mile radius of a regional processing center, that distinction is likely to create a larger difference because of the reduction from two trips per day to collect from each Post Office location to one. For all mailings, the date a mailing is postmarked may be days after the date it was received by a post office, particularly on weekends or holidays. So, you cannot assume that the postmark will reflect the date a piece was mailed.
Apparently, this is not actually a “change” of “any existing postal operations or postmarking practices, but is instead intended to improve public understanding of postmarks and their relationship to the date of mailing.” However, due to the RTO initiative, there is likely to be a more noticeable difference between the date a mailing is sent and the date it is postmarked, particularly in some areas.
The Rule clarifies that “the presence of a postmark confirms that the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece, and that the mailpiece was in the possession of the Postal Service on the identified date.” However, “the postmark date does not necessarily indicate the first day that the Postal Service had possession of the mailpiece. Moreover, the absence of a postmark does not imply that the Postal Service did not accept custody of a mailpiece, because the Postal Service does not postmark all mail in the ordinary course of operations.” Evidently, postmarks “have never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, and this fact will become more common under RTO.” “To the extent that customers currently have this view of the postmark, it does not reflect the realities of postal operations,” and this additional information is being provided so customers are “better equipped to adjust their plans accordingly.”
You can, and should, for all situations in which time is of the essence or proof of a particular date is needed, still request a postmark or “hand cancellation” at a retail counter to ensure the date of the postmark matches the date you handed the mailing to a USPS worker, at a minimum.
“Customers who want a postmark aligning with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece may request, for no additional fee, a manual (local) postmark at any Post Office, station, or branch when tendering their mailpiece. Customers planning to present significant mail volume—50 or more mailpieces—for (local) postmarks should contact the postmaster or other manager in advance to ensure that adequate resources are available.”
Further, you can request a “Certificate of Mailing.” “Customers who wish to retain a record or proof of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece(s) may purchase a Certificate of Mailing,” which is a service designed to provide evidence that individual mailpieces have been presented for mailing.” Registered Mail and Certified Mail services remain available if you need a mailing receipt as proof of applicable dates. The final option to ensure a postmark is applied the same day is to purchase postage at the counter and have a USPS employee apply a “PVI label” to the document, which indicates the date of acceptance.
The rule expressly warns that pre-printed labels, such as those from a “Self-Service Kiosks (SSK), Click-N-Ship online postage, and meter strips – show merely that a customer has purchased postage and the date on which the postage was printed” and that such pre-printed labels “do not in themselves demonstrate that the Postal Service accepted the mailpiece, or the date on which any such acceptance occurred.” Similarly, Intelligent Mail Barcodes (“IMBs”) are also applied by customers and do not “verify Postal Service possession.”
So, for anything you are mailing via first-class mail that needs to be postmarked by a certain date, or anything for which you may need to rely on the postmark date for any reason, additional steps have always been important, but now are even more so.
On the upside, it appears there is no planned increase in First-Class stamp prices for January 2026.
39 FR 52883, Section 608.11 “Postmarks and Postal Possession.
Written by Atty. Jennifer M. Hayden of Pettit Law Group S.C.
City of Milwaukee Passes Ordinance Requiring Landlords to Disclose to Tenants the Status of Fire Alarm and Fire Suppression Systems in some Rental Properties
Effective December 16, 2025, the City of Milwaukee’s new ordinance 214-28, requiring landlords to provide tenants with notice that the rental property in which they reside complies with specific fire safety requirements, is legally exempt from complying with those requirements, or is not exempt and does not comply with those requirements, went into effect.
What Does the Ordinance Require?
The new ordinance requires Landlords of residential rental buildings of three or more rental units to disclose in a clear, standardized form whether a rental unit or the rental property is equipped with fire alarm and fire suppression systems, such as sprinklers, as required by law. The ordinance requires that applicable landlords notify tenants of one of three options: (1) that the rental unit or rental property meets the requirements, (2) is lawfully exempt from the requirements and is thus legally non-conforming, or (3) is not compliant with the requirements and not exempt. The disclosure must also include the date of the latest fire inspection.
In addition to the separate one-page Disclosure Notice form, the ordinance requires landlords to provide tenants with a second form in which the tenant acknowledges receipt and review of the Disclosure Notice.
While the intent of the ordinance is laudable, its language is vague, confusing, and at times internally inconsistent. There is also a possibility that Wis. Stat. § 66.0104(2)(d)1.a. preempts the notice provision in the ordinance, which, if true, means the ordinance violates state law and is not enforceable. The Rental Property Association of Wisconsin (RPA) drafted a multi-page letter to the City Attorney of Milwaukee raising its concerns. The RPA has not yet received a response.
What Are Milwaukee Landlords to Do Now?
Despite the issues with the ordinance, Landlords with rental properties with three or more units should do their best to comply with the new ordinance. The RPA has drafted the standardized forms required by the ordinance, and they are available to RPA members free of charge. I have today completed the drafting of two forms: (1) Disclosure Notice for City of Milwaukee’s Fire Alarm and Fire Suppression System Requirements, and (2) Tenant Acknowledgment of Receipt of Disclosure Notice for City of Milwaukee Fire Alarm and Fire Suppression System Requirements. Both of which will be available through Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc. in the very near future.
To be safe, applicable landlords should indicate on the Disclosure Notice the date of their last fire inspection and then distribute both the Notice and the Acknowledgment form to all current tenants, requiring them to sign both forms. These two standardized forms should also be given to any new tenants going forward. Finally, after your next fire inspection, you will need to complete new Disclosure Notices indicating the latest inspection date, then distribute those new Disclosure Notices and Acknowledgement forms to all your tenants, who will again be required to sign and date.
Happy Holidays
T
City of Milwaukee’s New Fire Ordinance Is Now In Effect. Learn the Requirements
Below is an email blast that I received from the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc. (RPA). Please read below, and if you are not already a member of the RPA, please consider joining.
T
********************************************************************************************
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED—CITY OF MILWAUKEE Multifamily PROPERTIES
New Ordinance Effective 12/16/25 – LEASING DOCUMENTS AFFECTED!
Document Retention Necessary per City Ordinance
On December 2, 2025, the Mayor of the City of Milwaukee signed substitute ordinance 218-28, which relates to tenant acknowledgment of fire safety code noncompliance (exemption) in certain multifamily residential buildings. Here is the link to the text of the new ordinance.
City of Milwaukee Legislative Analysis: This ordinance requires the lessor of a residential rental building with 3 or more dwelling units to disclose, in a clear standardized form, whether a rental dwelling unit or the structure in which it is located is equipped with required fire alarm and fire suppression systems such as sprinklers, is lawfully exempt and legally non-conforming, or not compliant and not exempt. The disclosure shall include the most recent fire inspection date and, if applicable, the expiration of any temporary occupancy permit related to fire and life-safety systems. Dwelling units in buildings with 16 or more units or 3 or more stories above grade operating under lawful exemptions shall be inspected at least once every 6 months. The Department of Neighborhood Services may issue orders to vacate unsafe dwellings or those lacking valid permits, ensuring tenants are informed and protected when fire and life-safety standards are not met.
The ordinance changes include amendments to the fee ordinance (MCO 200-33) and the fire inspection ordinance (MCO 214-7).
SUMMARY:
All City of Milwaukee rental property owners are advised to: READ THE ORDINANCE AND ENSURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES.
YOU NEED TO KNOW if your City of Milwaukee properties are covered and if you will be required to:
(1) provide the required NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE LESSEES starting DECEMBER 16, 2025;
(2) obtain a SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM FROM EACH PROSPECTIVE TENANT prior to any new tenant signing a lease or rental agreement; and
(3) retain copies of signed disclosure documents for at least three years after the commencement date of each lease.
(4) In addition, be ready for additional notice requirements: Certain properties will need to provide updated notices to each tenant after inspections.
(5) While the ordinance states disclosures are to be made to a "prospective lessee", it also states the notice is to be provided before the execution of any lease or rental agreement. To be safe, provide notices and obtain acknowledgments before signing any renewal leases as well.
If your properties are covered by this ordinance, and you must comply, then:
YOU WILL NEED a separate form notice together with a separate form acknowledgement for each prospective tenant (or renewal tenant). These documents cannot be combined with the lease or rental agreement; they must be separate documents. The ordinances include a form disclosure and a form acknowledgment. For your general information, please see RPA’s sample form adaptations, together with RPA's important notice and instructions about those form adaptations. Members will be able to access RPA's additional important notice and instructions and sample forms on RPA’s website by logging in as an RPA member.
YOU WILL NEED to create a document retention policy to retain each signed disclosure document for a period of not less than 3 years following the commencement date of each lease. The document retention system must allow you to easily provide the proof of each document to the department upon request or during any inspections or permit reviews [in addition to maintaining the documents in each tenant file, it may be advisable to keep a file holding all disclosure documents from all units together.]
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE-SAFETY DISCLOSURE ORDINANCES SUBJECTS PROPERTY OWNERS TO PENALTIES PROVIDED IN S. 200-19 AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE RELATING TO VIOLATIONS OF HOUSING, RENTAL, OR OCCUPANCY REGULATIONS. Each day during which a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See MCO 200-19.
Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc. has concerns about the enforceability of the disclosure ordinance, which appears to be contrary to Wisconsin State Statutes, as well as the confusing language of the ordinance, which makes understanding the actual requirements of this ordinance and compliance with it challenging. However, despite the issues with this particular ordinance, RPA is committed to partnership with Wisconsin and Wisconsin municipalities to better educate and assist Wisconsin residents in fire safety, and encourages all members to disclose information helpful to Wisconsin residents regarding fire safety in resident homes and buildings.
NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE: This information is only for general informational purposes.
Please ensure that you are working with your attorney to determine whether your properties are subject to the fire safety disclosure, acknowledgment, and record retention requirements, and that your adoption and/or adaptation of the forms for the City of Milwaukee is compliant, along with your record retention systems.
This information should not be considered legal advice from Rental Property Association of WI, Inc. or its individual author, and you should discuss it with your attorney for legal compliance. Please seek appropriate legal or professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances that you may have at issue from a lawyer licensed to practice law in your state or jurisdiction if you wish to obtain legal advice about any matter.
If you are a member of the RPA you can access the new Notice and Acknowledgement forms.
Members, log in and go to the "For Members" tab, then Legal & Docs, as shown below, to download the instructions.
Questions: email us at admin@rpawi.org
Sincerely,
The Rental Property Association of WI (RPA)
Fair Housing Lessons for a Festive Season
I recently came across this helpful article about Fair Housing and the holiday season on the American Apartment Owners’ Association (AAOA) website. I want to thank Robbie Cronrod, Vice President of the AAOA, for allowing me to reprint this timely article on my blog.
Happy Holidays
T
Fair Housing Lessons for a Festive Season
As the holidays approach, property management professionals face the annual challenge of balancing festive spirit with compliance. Communities come alive with lights, decorations, and events, but within this joy lies the responsibility to ensure that everyone feels equally welcome. The Fair Housing Act doesn’t take a holiday, and neither should inclusion. Understanding where celebration meets regulation is crucial for creating a community where every resident can comfortably embrace the season.
Where Fair Housing Meets Holiday Cheer
Fair Housing laws protect individuals from discrimination based on several factors, including religion. This protection extends to how properties display, advertise, and organize holiday-related activities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clarified in its 1995 guidance that secular holiday symbols such as Santa Claus, snowmen, or “Merry Christmas” signage do not, by themselves, violate the Fair Housing Act. However, when decorations or events appear to favor one faith over others, management may unintentionally create the perception of religious preference or exclusion.
The guiding principle is equality—ensuring that every resident, regardless of their beliefs, can enjoy their home and community free from bias.
Setting the Stage with Inclusive Planning
Holiday inclusivity begins long before the first decoration is hung. Managers should plan celebrations and decor policies that represent all residents. That means thinking beyond one tradition and creating a welcoming environment for everyone. Instead of labeling a gathering as a “Christmas party,” consider a “Holiday Celebration” or “Winter Festivity.” The goal is to celebrate the season, not a specific religion.
When communities hold events, send invitations, and place advertisements, they should use inclusive language and imagery. This small step reinforces that every resident belongs—no matter what, or how, they celebrate.
Decorating Common Areas with Care
Common areas often become the center of holiday decorating debates. While residents appreciate festive spaces, property managers must ensure these areas remain neutral and inclusive. A display featuring a single religious symbol—such as a nativity scene or menorah—can suggest a preference, even unintentionally.
The safest approach is to feature seasonal, non-religious décor such as lights, snowflakes, or greenery. If religious displays are allowed, management should ensure equal representation for multiple faiths. Above all, be consistent. Policies regarding what can or cannot be displayed should be clear, written, and applied uniformly across the community.
Respecting Residents’ Right to Celebrate
Inside their homes, residents generally have the freedom to decorate as they wish, provided they comply with property policies and safety standards. For instance, decorations that pose hazards—like blocking fire exits or overloading electrical circuits—can be regulated. However, management should avoid restrictions that specifically target religious or cultural displays.
Door and patio decorations are common gray areas. If your policy prohibits decorations year-round, it’s acceptable to maintain that rule during the holidays. But if you permit seasonal displays, restrictions should only apply to items that are unsafe or offensive—not to personal expressions of faith.
Handling Complaints and Fostering Understanding
Even in well-managed communities, disagreements can arise over holiday decorations or events. The key is to respond with professionalism, empathy, and documentation. Any complaint related to religion or discrimination should be treated seriously, regardless of intent. Property managers should listen carefully, document all relevant details, and adhere to established procedures.
Training your team on how to respond to these concerns helps prevent misunderstandings and reinforces a culture of respect. By addressing issues promptly and fairly, you not only protect your residents’ rights but also safeguard your organization’s reputation.
Building a Year-Round Culture of Inclusion
The holidays provide an opportunity to showcase your community’s values. Inclusivity shouldn’t appear only when the calendar turns to December—it should be part of your property’s identity year-round. Review policies regularly, communicate expectations clearly, and lead by example. Encourage your team to think beyond compliance and embrace the spirit of equality that the Fair Housing Act was designed to protect.
When every resident feels seen, respected, and valued, the result is more than just compliance—it’s community.
The American Apartment Owners Association is the resource for landlords and real estate investors nationwide. From tenant screening and state-specific legal forms to expert education and industry updates, AAOA empowers rental owners with the tools they need to protect their properties and grow their portfolios. Join thousands of successful landlords who trust AAOA to make smarter, faster, and more confident leasing decisions.
If Freddie and Fannie Aren’t Enforcing the CARES Act, Do Landlords Still Have to Use a 30-Day Notice?
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Gary Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
If you’ve been paying attention lately, you’ve probably seen this bit of news:
Fannie and Freddie End CARES Notice Enforcement | National Apartment Association
Fannie Mae (officially the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)) and Freddie Mac (officially the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC)), both government-sponsored enterprises that sell mortgage-backed securities, are no longer enforcing the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement.
Great, right? No more 30-day notices, right? Well, not so fast.
The CARES Act was passed by Congress and signed into law on March 27, 2020. The CARES Act requires landlords in “covered entities” to issue notices giving tenants 30 days to respond (whether to pay rent or to address non-rent breaches). As such, it will take either a repealing of the CARES Act (by Congress and the President) or a court declaring the CARES Act void or no longer enforceable to eliminate the Act’s requirement that Landlords issue 30-day notices to tenants in Covered Entities.
There have been attempts in Congress to repeal the CARES Act provision requiring 30-day notices, but they have not gained any traction.
There have been a few reported cases outside of Wisconsin, most of which have upheld the CARES Act’s requirement to use 30-day notices for Covered Entities. One non-Wisconsin case limited the 30-day requirement to failure-to-pay rent notices only (not to non-rent breach notices), and one Iowa case held that the 30-day requirement had expired. Please remember that non-Wisconsin appellate cases do not apply in Wisconsin.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, in essence, mortgage servicers, and their indication that they will not enforce the CARES Act’s provisions in no way binds any other regulatory agency (such as Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, or Consumer Protection) or the courts. Just because Freddie and Fannie aren’t going to penalize you doesn’t mean that a court won’t dismiss your eviction case because you used a 5-day notice instead of a 30-day notice.
Hopefully, Fannie and Freddy’s decision will spur a cascade of action by other agencies, Congress, and the courts to officially reverse or end the 30-day requirement of the CARES Act. Until then, however, issuing anything less than a 30-day notice for a Covered Entity will continue to carry risks.
Drafted by Atty. Gary Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
To read additional posts dealing with the CARES Act, check out:
With the COVID-19 Pandemic over, Is the CARES Act Still In Effect?
CARES Act Eviction Restrictions Apply To More Landlords Than You Think
Who CARES? - Status on the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
Join Me For My Next Landlord Boot Camp - November 15, 2025
Don’t miss the 2025 Landlord Boot Camp with Attorney Tristan Pettit.
Saturday, Nov 15 | Sonesta Hotel, Wauwatosa
Register now before it’s too late
#LandlordBootCamp #TristanPettit #WisconsinLandlords #RPAWI #RentalPropertyAssociation #LandlordTraining #PropertyOwners
Oral Arguments on Koble Investments v. Marquardt Case To Be Heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on September 9, 2025.
Next Tuesday, September 9, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Koble Investments v. Marquardt. The attorneys will argue the issues in the case and be peppered with questions from the Justices. The result of this case will be significant to the rental industry, all housing providers, and those who rent from them. There is no set time frame by which the Court must provide a written decision after oral arguments. For the sake of the many landlords and property management companies facing class action lawsuits across the state, the Court should move swiftly.
It is believed that the Court will decide, at a minimum, two key issues. First, does the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) apply to residential landlord-tenant relationships, and if so, how are the WCA and Wisconsin’s Landlord-Tenant laws to be blended? Second, if a tenant alleges that their rental document contain one of the “10 Deadly Sins” (or more accurately, violate one of the ten things that should not be included in residential rental agreement as outlined in Wis. Stat. 704.44 and Wisc. Admin. Code ATCP 134.08), is the tenant entitled to the return of all rent paid during the tenancy (disgorgement) plus double damages plus their attorney’s fees without having to prove a causal connection between the alleged violation and their alleged harm.
Please note that the above issues have been simplified considerably for this blog post.
In addition to the written briefs submitted by the parties, the Wisconsin Supreme Court permitted briefs from five groups, including coalitions of real-estate industry associations and legal-aid/advocacy organizations, reflecting the case’s broad policy impact on landlords and tenants.
I have included links to the many briefs, including the “Friends of the Court” (amici briefs), for those who want to delve into the specific issues and arguments. At the very end of this blog post, I have provided you with a link to the live stream so that you can watch the oral arguments on Tuesday, without having to travel to Madison.
CCAP: The link below will take you to the entire appellate history of the case and provide you with access to the briefs of all of the parties.
Koble Investments CCAP Case History
Amici Briefs: For ease of access, below are the links to the amici briefs
Amicus Brief of Coalition for Maintaining Affordable Housing, UA and Appendix
Amicus Brief of North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters
Amicus Brief of Wisconsin Realtors Association, et al.
Amicus Brief of Wisconsin Builders Association
Amicus Brief of Legal Action et al.
Below is a link to live stream Tuesday’s oral arguments, if you want to watch. I plan to attend in person and observe.
When does the 21-day period begin for security deposit returns or accounting purposes?
By Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
When a tenant vacates at the end of a tenancy, the landlord must return the tenant’s security deposit and/or account for any funds withheld from the deposit. This blog post focuses on the timing of that return/accounting. Tristan has drafted prior blog posts that discuss the security deposit accounting letter itself:
How to Draft a Legal 21-Day Letter
The Ever-Important Security Deposit Transmittal Letter (or 21-Day Letter)
The deposit or accounting must be “delivered or mailed” to the tenant, per Wis. Stat. § 704.28(4)(c), within 21 days of the latest of:
If the tenant vacates on the termination date of the rental agreement, the termination date of the rental agreement;
If the tenant vacates or is evicted before the termination date of the rental agreement:
the date on which the tenant’s rental agreement terminates; or
if the landlord re-rents the unit before the tenant’s rental agreement terminates, the date on which the new tenant’s tenancy begins; or;
If the tenant vacates or is evicted after the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises or has been removed from the premises under s. 799.45 (2).
The above statutory section addresses all three potential vacate dates concerning the rental agreement termination date – on, before, and after. Please note that determining the actual “termination date” of a rental agreement does, in some instances, have some nuance, but that’s a discussion for another blog post.
Here are some practical examples of the above timing:
If you have a tenant on a term lease that ends on September 30th and the tenant vacates on September 30th, the counting of the 21 days begins on September 30th, and you have through October 20th to return and/or account for the security deposit.
If you have a tenant on a term lease that ends on December 31st, and the tenant vacates on September 30th, you must make “reasonable efforts” to mitigate the tenant’s damages by attempting to re-rent the rental unit.
If you are unsuccessful in re-renting the unit despite reasonable efforts, the counting of the 21 days begins on December 31st, and you have through January 20th to return and/or account for the security deposit.
If you successfully re-rent the unit for November 1st, you have through November 21st to return and/or account for the security deposit.
If you have a tenant on a term lease that ends on September 30th, but the tenant holds over and does not vacate until October 15th, the counting of the 21 days begins on October 15th, and you have through November 4th to return and/or account for the security deposit.
Note that, in all the above examples, and in every circumstance, if you begin counting the 21 days from when the tenant vacates, you should always be in compliance with the statutory timing of the security deposit/accounting return.
It should be noted that this blog post focuses on the latest (or last) day that you can send the deposit and/or accounting and comply with the law. There is absolutely nothing that precludes you from sending the deposit or accounting early. It is highly recommended that, to avoid any potential issues, you should deliver or mail the security deposit or accounting as early as possible. Failure to do so can be an expensive mistake.
Finally, the law does not require you to list all amounts that the tenant owes you within 21 days. Rather, it only requires you to account for how the security deposit was applied within 21 days.
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
Update on the Koble Investments vs. Elicia Marquardt Case at the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Blog post written by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
If you are a landlord in Wisconsin, you’ve no doubt heard about the Koble Investments case now pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. If you haven’t (or would like a refresher), please read this prior blog post regarding the Court of Appeals decision. Since the decision was published, Koble successfully petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review, and hopefully overturn, the Court of Appeals decision.
In the Supreme Court, both Koble and Marquardt have filed their briefs laying out their arguments in the matter:
Several interested entities, who are not parties to the action, have asked the Supreme Court to allow them to file Amicus, or “friend of the court”, Briefs to help guide the Supreme Court through the complicated issues and their potential ramifications on Wisconsin’s Landlord / Tenant landscape. These entities include a conglomerate comprising the Wisconsin Realtors Association, the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc., the Apartment Association of Northeast Wisconsin, Inc., the Fox Valley Apartment Association, Inc., and the Kenosha Landlord Association, Inc. This conglomerate also filed an Amicus brief in support of Koble’s request that the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals decision.
The Wisconsin Builder’s Association, North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, Coalition for Maintaining Affordable Housing, UA, and another conglomerate comprised of the Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc., University of Wisconsin Law Schools Economic Justice Institute, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault have each also filed requests with the Court to file Amicus Briefs. The Supreme Court granted permission to all five groups to file Amicus Briefs and set a deadline of June 9, 2025, for all of the briefs to be filed.
After June 9, the Supreme Court will likely schedule the case for oral argument, where the parties’ attorneys will present their arguments to the Court and field questions from the Justices regarding their positions. After oral argument, the Supreme Court will issue an Opinion. There is no time frame for the Court to schedule oral argument or issue its Opinion, so we will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as it progresses.
Blog post written by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
Can A Landlord Require A Tenant To Provide Written Notice To Vacate Prior To The End of A Lease?
The answer to the above question is that “it depends.” Specifically, it depends on the drafting of the rental agreement.
Scenario 1
If a lease for a specific term just ends, any language requiring a tenant to provide written notice to the landlord if the tenant intends to vacate at the end of the lease will probably not be enforceable.
Why? Because both parties know at the outset, when they signed the lease for a specific term, that the lease does not contain any language about the lease continuing after the initial term, and as such, it just ends. Both the landlord and the tenant should understand that unless they enter into a new rental agreement before the end of the initial lease term, the tenant must vacate by the end of the lease term.
Scenario 2
Now, if a lease for a specific term is drafted so that it automatically renews for another like term or automatically converts to a month-to-month tenancy at the end of the initial lease term, you have a completely different situation than the one referenced in Scenario 1. In this situation, the lease does not end; it either auto-renews (for the same lease term) or auto-converts (to a month-to-month tenancy). As a result, the lease includes language addressing the continuation of the tenancy beyond the initial lease term.
Under Scenario 2, the landlord does not know what the tenant will do at the end of the initial lease term. The tenant may vacate at the end of the term or continue residing in the rental unit, as the lease provides for continued occupancy. So, if the landlord does not know what the tenant intends to do at the end of the initial lease term, it is reasonable (and enforceable) to require the tenant to provide the landlord with written notice as to what s/he will do.
Unfortunately, some landlords do not understand the distinction between these two scenarios, which can put them in a precarious position and may result in a money judgment against them.
Scenario 1 - Recommended Best Practice for Landlord
If your lease is written as described in Scenario 1, where it just ends at the end of the lease term, the recommended best practice for the landlord to follow would be to have a reminder in your calendar approximately 90 days before the lease ends. The landlord should now determine, assuming the property is market-rate, whether to continue renting to the tenant upon expiration of the lease. If the landlord wants to continue the tenancy, the landlord and tenant should communicate to agree on how to proceed, then enter into a new rental agreement, whether another lease for a term or a month-to-month periodic tenancy.
If the landlord decides that the tenancy over the initial lease term was problematic and as a result, the landlord does not wish to continue the tenancy than the landlord should notify the tenant, in writing, that the tenancy will not continue beyond the initial lease term and that the tenant will need to move out on or before the last day of the lease term. In a market-rate rental property, a landlord is allowed to non-renew a tenant’s tenancy for any reason or no reason as long as the reason is not discriminatory or retaliatory. So, a landlord needs to understand this and make sure that it has sufficient documentation in the tenant’s file to support the non-renewal and defend against any claims by the tenant that the non-renewal was for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.
While the landlord is not legally required to provide the tenant with a new rental agreement or a notice of non-renewal, it is best practice to do so. If a landlord fails to do that, it will have a confused tenant who is not prepared to vacate and locate new housing and then “holds over” improperly. It is not in the best interest of the landlord or the tenant to be stuck in such a situation. Best practice encourages a landlord to proactively inform the tenant of their options after the lease term ends.
Scenario 2 - Recommended Best Practice for Landlord
Even if the landlord’s rental agreement is drafted in such a way that it either auto renews or auto converts, and the landlord sent the separate written notice reminding the tenant of this as required per Wis. Stat. 704.15, it is still to the benefit of the landlord to touch base with the tenant to confirm the tenant’s intentions at the end of the lease term. While it is not legally required, it is in the landlord’s best interest to understand what the tenant will do so the landlord is not surprised and can pivot as needed.
Conclusion
So, what is the best option for a landlord? Should it draft its lease as in Scenario 1 and let it end? Or should the landlord draft it like in Scenario 2 and have it automatically renew for another like term or automatically convert to a month-to-month periodic tenancy after the initial term?
There is no correct answer. There are pros and cons under both scenarios. A landlord must weigh the pros and cons and decide which option they prefer.
One thing I have learned over almost 30 years of representing landlords and property management companies is that there is no legal way to combine the two scenarios so that there are only positives and no negatives. If I had $1 for every time that I have been asked that question, you know how the saying goes.
Take care and Happy Landlording.
T
How Are Landlords Affected Now That The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Has Been Told to “stand down from performing any work task” by the President?
This blog post is authored by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created in 2011 primarily in response to the 2008 financial crisis and recession. It has been tasked with protecting consumers from unfair financial practices from banks, lenders, other financial companies, and, yes, even landlords. The CFPB was one of the agencies charged with enforcing the CARES Act, and has been active in regulating tenant screening processes.
Earlier this February, the Trump administration ordered that the CFPB’s employees “stand down from performing any work task.” The Bureau’s webpage currently provides a “404: Page not found” message (although the links from the home page, such as “Submit a Complaint” remain active). It is unclear whether any submitted complaint will garner any attention.
From a landlord’s perspective, though, this may have little immediate impact. All of the previously enacted statutes, rules, and regulations remain in place, at least for now. CFPB regulations have not been repealed. The CARES Act is still on the books. Other federal agencies (like the FTC and Department of Justice) still have jurisdiction to pursue landlords for unfair business practices.
The CFPB’s deactivation, though, signals a trend toward reducing and deregulating consumer protections. There may be more action to come.
This federal trend has yet to make it to the state level. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection remains active. State Courts are still the venue for evictions and can enforce the CARES Act by dismissing an improperly noticed eviction. Koble has emboldened tenant advocates, although the Wisconsin Supreme Court just accepted the case. However, it is still a good time to be a careful landlord.
The current administration’s philosophy to shrink the federal government is undoubtedly something we will keep our eyes on! We will keep you updated.
This blog post is authored by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
Update On Notices Available To Wisconsin Landlords In Residential Tenancies
By statute, there are several types of notices that a landlord can serve on a tenant if the tenant commits a breach of their Residential Rental Agreement or when the landlord wishes to terminate the tenancy. If your Residential Rental Agreement with the tenant specifies something different, you would want to use the longer notice period.
Written by Atty. Jennifer Hayden of Pettit Law Group S.C.
By statute, there are several types of notices that a landlord can serve on a tenant if the tenant commits a breach of their Residential Rental Agreement or when the landlord wishes to terminate the tenancy. If your Residential Rental Agreement with the tenant specifies something different, you would want to use the longer notice period.
Most of these notices can be used in periodic tenancies (such as a month-to-month tenancy) as well as a lease for the term (such as a 12-month lease) but under different circumstances. Please be aware that some notices can only be used in periodic tenancies, while others can only be used in leases for term. Most of the notice types cannot be used in a lease for over one year unless the landlord and tenant agree in writing, usually in the Rental Agreement, that specifies that the landlord can serve either a 5-day or 14-day Notice, which we refer to as the “saving language.”
5-DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or leases for more than a year with “saving language”)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(2)(a), Wis. Stats.)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(1p)(a), Wis. Stats.)
14-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING TENANCY FOR FAILURE TO PAY RENT
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or leases for more than a year with “saving language”)
Yes, but only if the tenant was served with a 5-day Notice To Pay Rent within the prior 12 months (Sec. 704.17(2)(a), Wis. Stats.)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(1p)(a), Wis. Stats.)
5-DAY NOTICE TO CORRECT BREACH (other than for non-payment of rent) OR VACATE
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or leases for more than one year with “saving language”)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(2)(b), Wis. Stats.)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(1p)(b)(1), Wis. Stats.)
14-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING TENANCY FOR BREACH (other than non-payment of rent)
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or leases for more than a year with “saving language”)
Yes, but only if the tenant was served with a 5-day Notice To Correct Breach in the prior 12 months (Sec. 704.17(2)(b), Wis. Stats.)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes
5-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING TENANCY FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(3m)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e. month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(3m)
5-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING TENANCY FOR DRUG OR GANG NUISANCE
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(2)(c) and 704.17(3)(b) Wis. Stats.)
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.17(1p)(c), Wis. Stats.)
5-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING TENANCY OF IMMINENT THREAT OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
Yes (Sec. 704.16(3))
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.16(3))
28-DAY NOTICE
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
No
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
Yes (Sec. 704.19, Wis. Stats.)
30-DAY NOTICE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT OR OTHER BREACH
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
Should only be used in leases for more than one year that do not contain “saving language”. (Sec. 704.19(3)(a))
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
No
NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL (or Letter Non-Renewing Tenancy)
Lease for Term (i.e., a lease for a term of one year or less or lease for a term of one year or more)
Yes, to notify the tenant that you will not be renewing their lease. Must be served just like a 5-day or 14-day notice.
Periodic Tenancy (i.e., month-to-month)
No. For a periodic tenancy, you would issue a 28-day Notice instead of a Notice of Non-Renewal.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CARES ACT ON NOTICE OPTIONS
As outlined in the November 21, 2024, blog post by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C., the 30-day Notice Requirement for “Covered Dwelling Units” is still law and will alter your ability to serve a 5-day, 14-day, or 28-day Notice to tenants in “Covered Dwellings.”
As Wisconsin law requires notices to be AT LEAST 5, 14, or 28 days, a notice is not invalid if it provides a tenant with more time. Thus, there is no penalty for complying with the provisions of the CARES Act, even if you were not required to do so. It may be beneficial to err on the side of compliance with the CARES Act when issuing notices if you are unsure if your rental property is a “Covered Dwelling.”
We have maintained that a “curable” 30-day Notice can be used in place of a 5-day Notice and that a “non-curable” 30-day Notice can be used in place of a 14-day Notice to comply with both the CARES Act and Wisconsin Statutes. Some tenant advocates have maintained that all notices under the CARES Act must be curable, but they have not provided our law firm with any support for that assertion.
Written by Atty. Jennifer Hayden of Pettit Law Group S.C.
With the COVID-19 Pandemic Over, Is the CARES Act Still In Effect?
This blog post was written by Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.
While some effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic may continue to linger, the Public Health Emergency officially ended in May 2023. Does that mean the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act) is no longer relevant?
Unfortunately, the CARES Act is still relevant for landlords, specifically the 30-day notice period required for “Covered Dwelling Units.”
For a brief recap on the history and some potential issues for not complying with the Act, please see this prior blog post
As a refresher, Section 4024(c)(1) of the CARES Act requires that “[t]he lessor of a covered dwelling unit may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.” In short, if your property is a Covered Dwelling Unit (with some government funding or backing), then notices should give the tenant 30 days to act.
There are several reasons why the CARES Act is still in effect.
First, do you remember the eviction moratoria? There were both federal and state-level prohibitions on filing evictions. The federal moratorium was found in the CARES Act, at Section 4024(b), the paragraph immediately preceding the 30-day notice requirement. The moratorium had a delineated end date (120 days from March 27). The provision requiring 30-day notices does not have a delineated end date. Because Congress put an end date to one provision but not the paragraph right after, it is clear that they did not intend for the 30-day notice requirement to expire.
Second, several courts have upheld the 30-day notice provision both before and after the official end to the pandemic. Courts in Washington, Colorado, Ohio, and Indiana all reviewed notices that did not provide the requisite 30 days for Covered Dwelling Units and dismissed the evictions based on the notices.
Finally, both Chambers of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal the 30-day notice provision of the CARES Act. In February 2023, Representative Barry Loudermilk introduced the “Respect State Housing Laws Act” in the House of Representatives. In February 2024, Senator Marco Rubio introduced the same “Respect State Housing Laws Act” in the Senate. Neither bill has yet to pass, but the fact that Congress, the political body that passed the CARES Act, has introduced legislation to repeal portions of it, is strongly suggestive that the CARES Act is still in effect.
While no cases have been decided in Wisconsin directing that the CARES Act is still in effect, laws are generally in effect until a court overturns them. Hence, the lack of a case stating that the CARES Act is in effect is not persuasive. Moreover, as noted in our prior post, there are penalties for not following the CARES Act. There are no penalties, however, for following the CARES Act provisions if you don’t have to. Wisconsin law requires notices of at least 5, 14, or 28 days, and a 30-day notice is not invalid for providing a tenant with too much time. It may be to your benefit to err on the side of compliance with the CARES Act when it comes to issuing notices.
Atty. Gary D. Koch of Pettit Law Group S.C.