Tristan’s Landlord-Tenant Law Blog
What Does HUD’s Decision To Revoke its 30-Day Notice Requirement Mean?
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.
Do you want to know everything about Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in Wisconsin? Then Attend My Landlord Boot Camp on November 16, 2024
Do you want to learn everything there is to know about residential landlord-tenant law in Wisconsin? If so, then you must attend my next Landlord Boot Camp, which will be held on Saturday, November 16th, from 8:30 am - 6 pm at the Sonesta Hotel in Wauwatosa
I will cover everything a landlord needs to know about residential landlord-tenant law in Wisconsin. We will be covering the all-important topics like:
Screening and Qualifying the Prospective Applicant and Fair Housing Issues
Rental Documents
ATCP 134: Residential Rental Practice Rules and Security Deposits
Causes for Evictions
Notices Terminating Tenancy
The Judicial Eviction Process, and
Collection of Your Money Judgement (a/k/a How Difficult It Is To Get Paid)
Post-pandemic, a lot of new issues have popped up, which we will also be covering like:
The CARES Act and whether your rental property is a "covered property" under the Act and what you must do differently.
The new federal and state focus is on "fees" that landlords are charging tenants and how that can cause trouble for landlords.
The newer debt collection form that must be used if you are collecting a debt for another
The rise in tenants appearing in court with attorneys and how this impacts the court process.
The issue of sealing (redacting of a tenant's name) in eviction actions.
There will be a significant focus on the impact of the Koble case and what you need to do to protect yourself, and what to do if you are sued for allegedly violating one of the “10 Deadly Sins.”
There will also be time for Q+A from 5 pm - 6 pm
You will also receive a PDF of my seminar outline and exhibits totaling more than 100+ pages and which prior attendees have stated is worth the price of admission alone.
I hope you can spend the day with me on Saturday, November 16th.
Please note that Landlord Boot Camp is only offered as an in-person event. You cannot attend virtually.
Please visit the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin's website to learn more about pricing and register for Landlord Boot Camp.
Can I Charge A Nonrefundable Pet Fee? Or What About Charging a Higher Pet Rent for the First Month?
I recently received a question from a client asking whether she could legally charge a nonrefundable pet fee of $150 or a more significant pet rent of $150 for the first month (with all subsequent pet rent being $50). It was an interesting question. Below is the thought process I used to analyze and provide my client with an answer.
We already know that a landlord cannot charge a nonrefundable pet deposit. My previous blog post explains why.
No one can say with 100% certainty whether my client’s proposal would be acceptable because no Wisconsin Statute or Administrative Code Provision is directly on point. Further, as far as I know, no case law in Wisconsin addresses this issue. Finally, I am not aware that a trial judge has provided a ruling on this topic. Even if a circuit court had made such a ruling, while interesting, it would not be precedent nor binding on the State or even another circuit court.
Based on my experience and prior dealings with the State (DATCP and/or the Attorney General’s office), the State would view what my client proposed as not being allowed and could result in her being investigated and possibly fined. While I often disagree with the State’s views on things, in this situation, I would have no “law” to support my argument against the State’s probable view that you cannot charge a nonrefundable pet fee or a more significant first month’s pet rent.
A decent argument could be made that a one-time pet fee is nothing more than a nonrefundable pet deposit. In an earlier blog post, I explained that a “pet deposit” meets the definition of a “security deposit,” and by definition, a security deposit cannot be nonrefundable.
So I asked my client, if the State were to investigate your practices on this issue and ask what that first month's pet charge of $150 was used for, how would you respond? She replied that she would answer that she charged the up-front pet fee or made the first month’s pet rent larger than the subsequent months because pets can quickly cause damage to a rental property. Additionally, she indicated that if a tenant were agreeable to paying this amount, it would prove that the tenant was serious about keeping a pet.
Based on my client’s first response, I explained to her that the State would more than likely respond that the purpose of charging a pet deposit is to cover potential damage to the rental property caused by the pet. And because a pet deposit must be refundable if there is no pet damage to the rental property, then it would need to be returned to the tenant, and so by her charging a nonrefundable pet fee, it was no different than charging a nonrefundable pet deposit, she just referred to it by a different name.
I explained that since what she was proposing was uncertain at best and since most landlords want to avoid being investigated by the State, it would be much safer and perfectly legal for my client to take the pet fee of $150 instead and divide it by 12 (months), and add that amount to the monthly pet rent. This would increase the monthly pet rent by $12.50, which hopefully wouldn’t be so large as to cause a potential tenant not to rent from my client.
I further explained to her that if she did not want to increase the monthly pet rent, another option that would accomplish her goals of covering any pet damage and demonstrate that the tenant was serious about wanting a pet would be to make the $150 a refundable pet deposit (or perhaps my client should even consider raising that amount since pets can cause a lot more damage than $150 in a matter of minutes). But more importantly, I explained to her that by charging a refundable pet deposit, she would know with certainty that what she was doing would not run afoul of Wisconsin law and would keep the State out of her hair.
I also advised her that since a pet deposit can only be kept if a pet damages the rental property, some clients raise the security deposit amount for tenants with pets rather than charging a pet deposit. The reason for doing this is that a security deposit can legally be retained to repair or replace any damage, waste, or neglect, regardless of whether it was caused by a pet, and can also be kept to cover rent that was not paid. Nothing is more frustrating than having to return a pet deposit to a tenant because there was no pet damage when that same tenant owes you past due rent or caused damage himself/herself to the rental property, far exceeding the tenant’s security deposit.
I encouraged my client to consider charging an additional security deposit to tenants with pets rather than a pet deposit, as doing so would allow her to retain the deposit, if legally entitled, for non-pet damage, past-due rent, and other amounts allowed to be deducted from a tenant’s security deposit.
Safe Landlording.
T
Don’t Miss the RPA’s Annual Tradeshow + Speaker Event - RPA-CON 2024 - On Friday, October 25th + Saturday, October 26th
The Rental Property Association of Wisconsin’s Annual Trade Show and Speaker Event, nicknamed RPA-CON 2024, will be held this Friday and Saturday, October 25th and 26th at The Ingleside. You will not want to miss this event. Over 60+ vendors and suppliers to the Rental Industry will be present, and a slew of speakers will present on all aspects of real estate.
I will provide a Landlord-Tenant Law update on Friday, October 25th, at 10 a.m. and Saturday, October 26th, at 9:30 a.m.
I hope to see many of you there.
T
Avoid “Fraudulent Transfers” When Conveying Rental Property to LLC’s
This is a guest blog post written by Atty. Dave Espin of Pettit Law Group S.C.
In light of the recent Koble Investments v. Marquette decision, it is now more critical than ever for landlords who hold rental properties in their personal names to consider transferring them to limited liability companies. If a tenant files a lawsuit (or a counterclaim in an eviction action) against you, landlords who hold properties in their personal names could face large money judgments against them in their individual capacities. This could result in the holders of such judgments levying against personal assets like your home, vehicles, bank accounts, wages, or business interests in order to collect on such judgments.
If a rental property is properly transferred to an LLC (and any relevant leases are also in the LLC’s name), those suing the LLC can generally only seek to collect on a judgment using the LLC’s assets rather than the owner’s personal assets. However, one crucial factor that often goes overlooked is the timing of such a transfer to prevent it from being deemed a “fraudulent transfer” that could void the conveyance altogether.
A transfer can be deemed a voidable “fraudulent transfer” if it is made with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” In Wisconsin, there are several factors, often referred to as “badges of fraud,” that a court may consider when determining whether a transfer meets this definition. Two of the most critical factors are (1) whether, before the transfer was made, the debtor had been sued or threatened with a lawsuit, or (2) whether the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred by the debtor.
So, if you have been threatened with a lawsuit, served with an actual lawsuit, or a judgment has been entered against you, it may already be too late to transfer your property to an LLC to protect your personal assets. Thus, it is vitally important that if you own rental properties in your personal name, that you speak with an attorney about setting up an LLC and transferring your rental properties to it before you are hit with a demand letter or lawsuit. Otherwise, you may be putting your personal assets at risk.
Blog post written by Atty. David Espin of Pettit Law Group S.C.