ATTENTION LANDLORDS: Wisconsin Court of Appeals case of Koble v. Marquardt Is Now Law

This is a long blog post, and I apologize in advance, but I sincerely hope that you take the time to read it all the way until the end as it is very important that Wisconsin landlords know what they will be facing. This may be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues facing landlords in the last 30 years that I have been a practicing attorney, representing many of you.

Koble Investments v. Marquardt (“Koble”) is a District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals case from Marathon County which has now been published and therefore is now the law in the State of Wisconsin. When a Court of Appeals case is published it becomes precedent for all courts that are lower than the Court of Appeals, which means all the state circuit courts in every county in Wisconsin.

The holding in Koble is that if a landlord has a void rental agreement (i.e., the rental agreement contains one of the “10 Deadly Sins” as set forth in Wis. Stat. § 704.44  the remedy for the rental agreement being void and unenforceable is the complete disgorgement of all rent previously paid by the tenant to the landlord. Stated another way, if a landlord has a provision in its rental agreement, which includes any rental documents as they are incorporated into the rental agreement, that violate any of the “10 Deadly Sins,” the landlord must return all rent that it received from the tenant during the tenant’s entire tenancy. Essentially, because of something that may not even have been intentional by the landlord, the tenant will get to live in the landlord’s rental property for free for the tenant’s entire tenancy, even if the tenant was not damaged because of the prohibited language in the rental agreement.

While the landlord in the Koble has petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to accept and hear this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court only accepts a limited number of cases each year and is not obligated to take the Koble case.

Additionally, the landlord in Koble failed to raise the argument that under Wisconsin law if a landlord’s lease is determined to be void, it automatically defaults to a month-to-month tenancy per Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2), and thus still requires the tenant to pay rent. How did the landlord fail to raise such an obvious argument? I do not know the answer for certain, but my assumption is that the attorney that represented the landlord was unfortunately not familiar with Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant law.

In May of 2023, in an unpublished District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals case also out of Marathon County entitled Henchey and Blakely v. Wausau Landmark Corp. (“Henchey”) the landlord also failed to raise the argument that a void lease defaults to a month-to-month tenancy and that rent still must be paid. In Henchey, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from District III also said the sole remedy for having an illegal provision in a lease was the return all rent paid by the tenant during the entire tenancy, thus allowing the tenant to live for free. In Henchey, the tenant was not even a current tenant of the landlord at the time of the lawsuit. The tenant had moved out of the rental property two (2) years earlier before choosing to sue the landlord for the return of its rent. Again, just like in Koble, the tenant was not damaged because of the prohibited provision included in the lease. In Henchey, the Court of Appeals analogized the inclusion of prohibited language in the lease to an auto repair shop failing to obtain prior authority from the customer to make the repair and failing to provide an estimate of the cost of the repair to the customer prior to commencing work on the customer’s car.

Additionally, the landlord in Koble also allegedly failed to sufficiently develop its argument against the remedy of returning all rent received during the entire tenancy back to the tenant. The landlord also failed to advise the court that such a holding would decimate a large part of the residential rental industry in Wisconsin.

Since the above arguments were either not raised or allegedly not sufficiently developed by the landlord in Koble, those arguments are essentially waived and cannot be raised by the landlord before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Thus, the burden falls on the various landlord groups throughout the state, such as the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc. (“RPA”) to take action and make these arguments to the Wisconsin Supreme Court by filing an amicus (“friends of the court”) brief requesting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court accept the Koble case. This is necessary so that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin can prevent an unjust outcome because the applicable law in Wisconsin was ignored.

The publication of Koble is detrimental to all Wisconsin landlords because tenants now have an even greater reason to argue that all rental leases that they have ever entered into with a landlord or property management company are void and contrary to Wis. Stat. § 704.44. Tenants have nothing to lose in making such an argument. If they prevail, they receive a windfall and have been able to live for free. And if they lose, their case is just dismissed and there is no penalty to the tenant.

In the Koble case, the landlord failed to include the required domestic violence notice provisions as required per Wis. Stat. § 704.14. Further, the lease also contained language that allowed the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant for a crime committed in relation to the rental property. The inclusion of such language coupled with the failure to include the domestic violence language is a clear violation of the 10th Deadly Sin (Wis. Stat. § 704.44(10)).

But the arguments that tenants have been making since Henchey in May of 2023, have not been as clear. In fact, some of the arguments being made stretch both the imagination and common sense. Arguments are being made that if a landlord’s lease states that a “tenant can be evicted if they engage in criminal activity on the premises” that it violates the 9th Deadly Sin (Wis. Stat. § 704.44(9)).

Wis. Stat. § 704.44(9) says that a lease will be void if it “Allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant based solely on the commission of a crime in or on the rental property if the tenant, or someone who lawfully resides with the tenant, is a victim, as defined in 950.02(4), of that crime.”

Where in the following language -- “tenant can be evicted if they engage in criminal activity on the premises” -- does is say that the landlord can evict a tenant if they are a victim of a crime? Nowhere. It does not state that anywhere and thus it is not a violation of the 9th Deadly Sin. But it is being argued that the above language violates the 9th Deadly Sin unless you also include the following phrase: “unless the tenant, or someone who lawfully resides with the tenant, is a victim, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 950.02(4), of that crime.”

So, with the publication of Koble, I anticipate that landlords will see even more tenants trying to attack their leases arguing that they are void. Wisconsin landlords must ensure they are using rental documents that do not violate any of the 10 Deadly Sins. If you are using the rental documents that I draft that are sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank (“WLB”), you must use the most current version of both the Residential Rental Agreement, Rules and Regulations, Nonstandard Rental Provisions, and the other rental forms that I draft. WLB provides you with a list of the most current rental documents. This is necessary to protect yourself. It doesn’t mean that tenants won’t still try to attack them. They will. They most definitely will. They will continue to attack them as long as there is the possibility for them to obtain that windfall and live for free.

The Koble case could completely wipe out small to mid-size landlords in Wisconsin. If many tenants living in a large rental complex come together to sue a larger landlord seeking reimbursement of all rent paid or if all tenants renting from a large landlord with multiple rental properties in the state, join in a class action lawsuit against that larger landlord seeking the return of all their rent, that landlord could go out of business as well.

If landlords are forced to file bankruptcy and/or give up their rentals, who is prepared to take over their roles? Is the government ready to step in and be a landlord? We need only look so far as the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (“HACM”) to see that the government is not the answer. Who then?

A final note, if you happen to be on the wrong end of one of these lawsuits and the tenant is arguing that your rental documents are void and unenforceable and that you must return all of their rent payments and let them live for free, make sure that you contact the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc. (RPA) or your local landlord association. Let them know of your situation so they can help.

Additionally, if you have been sued, make sure that you retain an attorney that understands and is knowledgeable about Wisconsin landlord-tenant law as there are legitimate and valid arguments and defenses that can and should be raised in your defense. Don’t’ end up like the landlords in Henchey and Koble.

Thanks for reading until the end.

T

It Is Very Important That Landlords Ensure That They Are Using the Most Current Version of WLB's Landlord Tenant Rental Forms.

It is very important that landlords that are using the landlord-tenant law rental documents/forms that I draft, and which are sold through Wisconsin Legal Blank (WLB), ensure that they are using the most current forms.  To aid you in determining if you are using the most current version, WLB just published the document below on their website, so that you know have one place to go to determine if your rental documents are up to date. 

Please be assured that I don't revise any of the WLB landlord-tenant forms just for the hell of it.  If I revise a rental form, it is for an important reason.  In some situations the law has changed and that necessitates the revision. Other times, a Court may make an adverse ruling against a landlord based on some language in the form, and if that landlord brings this to my attention and I can confirm the ruling, that may be the reason for a revision. Sometimes, I simply have come up with a better way to explain something in the rental document or realized that I should address a new issue or topic that will make the rental document better.  But there is always an important reason that causes me to revise any of the WLB rental documents. So, if you notice that you are not using the most current version of a rental document, take the time to purchase the updated version and begin using it as soon as possible as allowed under Wisconsin Law, so that you are protected as well as possible.

Thanks

T

Sorry, there are no products in this collection

How Long Should A Landlord Save A Tenant's Lease and Other Rental Documents?

A while ago I wrote a post in which I recommended that landlords retain a denied rental applicant's application and related paperwork for at least 2 years from the date of denial.  This post will focus on the situation where the landlord has accepted the applicant, the applicant was your tenant, and now their tenancy has ended for whatever reason.  Under this scenario, how long should a landlord hold on to a past-tenant's rental documents (which would include the lease or month to month rental agreement, nonstandard rental provisions document, pet addendum etc. etc.)?

The answer to this question again, just like in my prior post, depends on something called the "statute of limitation."  A statute of limitation is a law which sets the maximum period in which a person can wait before filing a complaint or lawsuit against another person.

By entering into a lease or a month to month rental agreement (or any other rental document for that matter) with a tenant, you have entered into a contract.  So, if a tenant refuses to take occupancy because the tenant feels that the apartment was not in a habitable condition as promised, the tenant could sue the landlord for a breach of contract.  If a landlord forgot to return a tenant's security deposit within the applicable time frame, the tenant could also sue a landlord for a breach of contract.  Most violations of a lease or other rental document would be considered a breach of contract.

The statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit based upon a breach of contract in Wisconsin is 6 years from the date of the breach.  So, the safest thing for a landlord to do is to keep a past-tenant's rental file, and specifically all the contracts, for at least 6 years from the date that the contract ended. 

When it comes to the return of a security deposit, a landlord has 21 days after a lease has ended (or any other action set forth in Wis. Stat. § 704.28(4)) to return the security deposit or send the letter itemizing how the security deposit was applied.  As such a landlord would be smart to retain the tenant's file and all contracts for at least 6 years after the deadline for the return of the tenant’s security deposit (i.e. 6 years + 21 days from any event sent forth is Wis. Stat. § 704.28(4)).

If you forget to keep your past-tenant's rental documents for at least 6 years, you could end up in the unenviable position of trying to defend yourself against a lawsuit filed by a past-tenant whose tenancy you have no memory of.  As such, you would have no documents to refer to, to refresh your memory nor would you have any documents that you could use as an exhibit in court.  Keep in mind that a tenant typically only has one landlord at a time, whereas you may have tens or hundreds of tenants simultaneously.  It is probably safe to say that the tenant will have a better memory of you and his or her tenancy than you will have of them.  Therefore, keeping all tenant-related documentation for as long as the past tenant can sue you, is very important.  With computers and the ability to save things digitally these days, a landlord has no excuse for not holding on to a tenant’s rental file for at least the length of the statute of limitations.

New and Improved Residential Rental Agreement Form Available Now

As many of you know, there was a large Landlord-Tenant law that was enacted last month. If you were not aware of this you should take a look at my earlier post on Act 317. As a result of that new law, it was necessary for me to add a new section to the Residential Rental Agreement forms (Forms 19 and 19L) that I draft and which are sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Company, Inc.

I also took the opportunity to make some other additions/revisions to improve the Rental Agreement form. You know how it goes, once something is completed, rather it be a newly remodeled house, a tweak to your golf swing, or as in this case, a residential rental agreement form, you automatically start wanting to do something more to it. Anyhow, I have been keeping a list of changes that I wanted to make to the Rental Agreement ever since it was printed back in August of 2016.

Below is a summary of the changes to the new and improved Residential Rental Agreement form:

1. Electronic Delivery of Certain Information/Documentation

I added a new section entitled “Electronic Delivery of Certain Information/Documentation" which summarized the new law that allows a Landlord to send certain information and documents to a Tenant via electronic means as long as the parties have agreed to this in writing. Please note that in order for this portion of the new law to apply, a landlord will have to enter into a new rental agreement or renewal that includes such language after April 18, 2018, which is when Act 317 became effective.

2. Short-Term and Vacation Rentals Prohibited

With the significant rise of tenants everywhere subletting their rentals, or portions of their rentals, via online websites like Airbnb, Homeaway, and VRBO, it became necessary to add to the form's section entitled “Assignment or Sublease" clarifying that short-term or vacation rentals are indeed a subletting and are not allowed.

3. End of Lease Term will be 12 noon.

I added a section that specifies that a lease for term will terminate at 12 noon on the final day of the term thus allowing, Landlords a bit more time to turn the unit over.

4. Additional Occupants Under Age 18 Residing on the Premises

I added a new section that allows a Landlord to list underage occupants residing in the premises. This was especially needed because if you were using the digital version of the Rental Agreement form and you included a child's name in the “Tenant" section, it would automatically create a signature line for the child. Oops.

5. No Mounting of Flat Screen Televisions or Satellite Dishes

Under the section entitled “Modifications To Premises" I added a prohibition against the mounting of flat screen televisions to walls and satellite dishes to shared portions of the premises, unless previously authorized by Landlord.

6. Payment for Damage

I added a new section entitled “Payment for Damage" that indicates that if Tenant-caused damage is repaired by Landlord that Tenant must reimburse Landlord for the costs within 10 days of demand,

7. Clarification of Overnight Guest Provision

The language used in the “Use of Premises and Guests" section of the Rental Agreement relating to how long a guest could reside in the rental unit needed to be clarified as it was vague and unclear. Language was added to explain that a guest may not reside in the rental unit for more than 14 non-consecutive days within any one year period or for more than 3 consecutive days within any one month period, without the prior written permission of Landlord.

8. Damage By Casualty

I completely re-wrote the “Damage by Casualty" section of the rental agreement in light of huge uptick in floods and fires that I have seen recently.. I felt that the prior language was not sufficiently clear to allow a Landlord all of the options available to him/her if the rental premises became untenatable due to casualty.

9. No Third-Party Checks Allowed and Ability to Require Future Payments Be Made By Certified Funds

I added language to the “Rent" section of the rental agreement form stating that unless otherwise agreed to by Landlord, all rental payments must be made from Tenant or Co-signer's account and that third-party checks will not be accepted. I also added language explaining that if a Tenant's rent payments is returned due to insufficient funds or for any other reason that a Landlord may require that future rent be paid by certified funds.

It is my hope that these changes will make the Residential Rental Agreement form more up-to date and beneficial to those of you using it. If you are interested in purchasing the new and improved Rental Agreement please contact Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc. at (414) 344-5155, wilegalblank.com or in person at 749 N. 37^th Street in Milwaukee

Take Care

T

What Is The Difference Between a Rental Agreement, a Lease, and a Month to Month Tenancy

A question that I am often asked is what is the difference between a rental agreement, a lease, and a month to month tenancy.

I will do my best to explain.

The "Real World" Answer

A "Rental Agreement" is the general term that is used to cover all types of rental tenancies. A rental agreement includes a lease and a periodic tenancy (such as a month to month tenancy).

A "Lease" is a specific type of rental agreement. A lease is a tenancy for a definite period of time with a specific beginning date and a specific end date. A lease can be for any duration of time that you can think of . . . 10 years, 5 years, 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, 1 month, or even for 1 week. They key component of a lease is that it is for a specific duration of time. I often refer to a lease as a "lease for term" to remind people that we are dealing with a tenancy for a specific period of time (i.e. term). A Lease can be in writing or oral, however a lease for more than one year must be in writing in order to be enforceable. It is my recommendation that all leases be in writing.

A "Periodic Tenancy" is another type of rental agreement. A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that has a beginning date but no end date and continues indefinitely until terminated by either the landlord or tenant. The most common type of periodic tenancy is a month to month. A periodic tenancy can be in writing or oral. It is my recommendation that all periodic tenancies be in writing.

While the definitions are fairly straightforward, things become muddled because many people use the terms improperly and/or interchangeably. For example, I often hear people say that they have a "month to month lease." There is no such thing as a month to month lease. You either have a month to month tenancy or you have a lease. They are not the same thing as the month to month tenancy continues indefinitely until terminated whereas the lease has a specific end date.

The "Law School" Answer

A rental agreement is defined as an oral or written agreement between a landlord and tenant, for the rental or lease of a specific dwelling unit or premises, in which the landlord and tenant agree on the essential terms of the tenancy, such as rent. Wis. Stat. § 704.01(3m) (2015-16).

A lease is defined as an agreement, whether oral or written, for the transfer or possession of real property or both real and personal property, for a definite period of time. Wis. Stat. § 704.01(1) (2015-16).

A periodic tenancy, while having a specific start date does not have a specific end date and continues indefinitely until either the landlord or the tenant terminates the tenancy. A periodic tenant holds possession of a rental property without a lease and pays rent on a periodic basis. Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2) (2015-16).

Thanks

T

New & Revised Landlord-Tenant Forms Available at Wisconsin Legal Blank

As a result of 2015 Act 176 becoming law earlier this month it became necessary to draft and/or revise some of the landlord-tenant forms sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc.

As of March 24th the following revised or new forms will be available at WLB:

• 5 Day Notice To Vacate for Criminal Activity or Drug-Related Criminal Activity

This new notice may be served on a tenant, under any tenancy, if the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or a guest or other invitee of the tenant or of a member of the tenant's household, has engaged in criminal activity or drug-related criminal activity. The notice cannot and should not be served on a Tenant who is a victim, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 950.02(4), of the criminal activity. It is not necessary that the tenant have been arrested for or convicted of the criminal activity or drug-related criminal activity in order to serve this notice.

For more information on the new law regarding criminal activity in rental housing refer to my blog post summarizing Act 176.

• 5 Day Notice To Vacate for Imminent Threat of Serious Physical Harm

This notice has nothing to do with Act 176. I had never drafted this form in the past because as there did not seem to be a demand. In the last few months I have had many clients encounter domestic violence issues amongst their tenants such that the victim of the domestic abuse has requested that the landlord remove the abuser, and therefore I thought I better create the form.

• Residential Rental Agreement

The biggest change to this form is the inclusion of language regarding criminal activity and drug-related criminal activity on the rental premises as set forth in Wis. Stat. 704.17(3m) as created by Act 176.

I also added a new clause which addresses the non-liability of the landlord in certain circumstances and another clause prohibiting modifications to the premises by the tenant without prior written approval by the landlord.

I also made some smaller changes as a result of the passage of Act 176 which most likely will not even be noticed but are important. Finally, I removed the language that said rent is "due" by a specific date and replaced it with rent "must be received by" a certain date. modified that rent must be "received by" a certain date.

In order to fit the above changes into the form it became necessary to remove the "Co-Signer/Guarantor" section of the Rental Agreement. I am in the process of creating a separate Personal Guaranty Addendum with beefed up language.

I am currently working on the following forms which are not yet available. When they become available I will let you know via this blog.

• A table that summarizes all of the various notices in Wisconsin and when to use each one
• A revised Nonstandard Rental Provisions form
• A Smoking Policy Addendum
• A Personal Guaranty Addendum
• A Bed Bug Addendum
• A basic Commercial Lease

The 10 Deadly Sins: 10 Provisions That Landlords Cannot Include in Their Wisconsin Residential Rental Agreements

With the passage of Act 143 (2012) and Act 76 (2014) the legislature has created several new provisions that a Residential Landlord cannot include in his Rental Agreement. There are currently 10 items, which I affectionately refer to as the "10 Deadly Sins" that if they are included in your Wisconsin residential rental agreement will render the agreement void and unenforceable.

In my representation of landlords over the past 20 years, the two most frequent situations in which I have found an illegal provision in a rental agreement were because: (1) the landlord decided to draft his/her own rental agreement and didn't know that Wisconsin law prohibited him/her from including certain language, and (2) the landlord used a rental agreement that s/he found on the internet that was not drafted by a person knowledgeable about Wisconsin landlord-tenant law.

Section 704.44 of the Wisconsin Statutes sets forth the prohibited provisions.

You cannot include a provision in your Wisconsin residential rental agreement that:

1. Allows a landlord to do any of the following because the tenant has contacted an entity for law enforcement services, health services, or safety services:

a. Increase rent

b. Decrease services

c. Bring an action for possession of the premises (i.e. eviction lawsuit)

d. Refuse to renew a rental agreement

e. Threaten to take any action in (a) - (d)

This prohibition is pretty self-explanatory. You cannot have a rental agreement provision that allows a landlord to retaliate against a tenant in any way just because the tenant has called the police, the municipal building inspection department, or other agency to complain about something that the landlord did (when they shouldn't have) or something the landlord didn't do (when they should have).

2. Authorizes the eviction of a tenant from the property other than by the judicial eviction process set forth in the Wisconsin Statutes.

Essentially this means that you cannot put any language in your rental agreement that states that if the tenant refuses to vacate at the end of a lease or after committing a breach, that the landlord is able to engage in self-help eviction. Your rental agreement cannot state that the landlord can change the locks so that the tenant is locked out. Your rental agreement cannot state that the landlord can remove the door to the apartment. The rental agreement cannot state that the landlord can turn off the heat or electricity to the unit. Nor can your rental agreement state that the landlord can remove the tenant's belongings and put them on the curb or in a storage facility.

If a tenant refuses to leave your property, the only legal way to have them removed is to file an eviction action against them, obtain a judgment of eviction, and if necessary involve the Sheriff's Department to physically remove the tenant. Because this is the only legal way to remove a tenant, it is illegal to include some other procedure to remove a tenant in your Wisconsin residential rental agreement.

3. Provides for the acceleration of rent payments if the tenant defaults or breaches the rental agreement or otherwise waives the landlord's obligation to mitigate damages as required in section 704.29, Wis. Stats.

Some commercial leases include an "acceleration of rents" clause but such clauses are prohibited in Wisconsin residential leases. So if a tenant breaches their rental agreement the landlord cannot require that the tenant immediately pay all future rent through the end of the term. According to sec. 704.29 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the landlord must attempt to mitigate the tenant's damages by trying to re-rent the unit. If the landlord is able to re-rent the unit then the breaching tenant will no longer be responsible for the rent once the new tenant moves in and begins paying rent. If the landlord is unable to re-rent the unit then the breaching tenant will be responsible for all of the rent through the end of the term, however since the landlord is unable to determine if that will be the case at the time of the breach, the landlord cannot include language in the rental agreement that the tenant must pay all future rent immediately upon a breach. It is illegal for a landlord to avoid his duty to mitigate the breaching tenant's damages (i.e. make effort to re-rent the unit) by putting such language in the rental agreement.

4. Requires the tenant to pay the landlord's attorney's fees or costs that are incurred in any legal action or dispute arising under the rental agreement.

This is the illegal provision that I see the most often when reviewing rental agreements. The lease agreements that are sold at OfficeMax and Office Depot contain this prohibited language. This is also the illegal language that was included in the rental agreement at issue in the seminal prohibited rental provision case of Baierl v. McTaggart.

In a commercial lease it is acceptable to include language that requires a tenant to pay for the landlord's attorney's fees and costs however it is not allowed in the residential context. A landlord who prevails in court and has a tenant properly evicted will still be responsible for paying his/her own attorney's fees. If you are interested in learning more about the Wisconsin Supreme Court's reasoning you should read the Baierlcase.

5. Authorizes the landlord or an agent of the landlord to confess judgment against the tenant in any action arising under the rental agreement.

A Wisconsin residential rental agreement is prohibited from including a clause that says that the tenant authorizes the landlord to automatically take a judgment against the tenant and that the tenant has no right to defend against it.

6. Relieves the landlord from liability for property damage or personal injuries caused by the landlord's negligent acts or omissions.

To put it simply, if the landlord causes damage or injury to a tenant then the landlord will be responsible for it. A landlord cannot remove his/her liability by having a tenant sign a rental agreement waiving that responsibility. For example, if a landlord is aware that the railing on his rental property's second floor porch is loose and the landlord has not gotten around to repairing it for several weeks, the landlord could be responsible for the tenant's injuries should he fall off the porch, regardless of what the rental agreement says.

7. Imposes liability on a tenant for any of the following:

(a) Personal injury arising from causes clearly beyond the tenant's control.

(b) Property damage caused by natural disasters or by persons other than the tenant's the tenant's guests or invitees.

This Deadly Sin is even broader in scope than the 6th Deadly Sin. Essentially, the rental agreement cannot state that a landlord can hold a tenant responsible for personal injuries that were caused by something beyond a tenant's control. So if a massive snowstorm injures someone or if an electrician hired by the landlord improperly wires the rental unit and their negligence causes injury to someone, a landlord cannot state that the tenant is liable for those injuries as they were out of the tenant's control.

Similarly, if that massive snowstorm or the faulty wiring by the electrician hired by the landlord results in property damage, a rental agreement cannot state that the tenant in liable for that damage as the damage was caused by a natural disaster and/or a person other than the tenant or the tenant's guests or invitees.

However, it is legal and enforceable for a rental agreement to state that a tenant will be responsible for personal injuries and/or property damage if the injuries or damage were caused by the tenant, the tenant's guests, or the tenant's invitees.

8. Waives any other statutory or legal obligation of the landlord to deliver the unit in a fit or habitable condition or maintain the unit during the tenancy.

A landlord has a responsibility to provide the tenant with an rental unit that is liveable and safe. A landlord also has the responsibility to repair and maintain the property to insure that it remains safe and livable. A landlord cannot avoid this responsibility even if the tenant agrees to allow him/her to do so in the rental agreement.

9. Allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant based solely on the commission of a crime in or on the rental property if the tenant, or someone who lawfully resides with the tenant, is a victim of that crime.

Simply stated, your rental agreement cannot state that the tenant or a legal occupant is the victim of a crime.

10. Allows the landlord to terminate a tenant's tenancy for a crime committed in relation to the rental property and the rental agreement does not include the notice of domestic violence protections required under sec. 704.14, Wis. Stats.

Most good rental agreements contain some language along the lines of "Tenant shall not engage in or allow others to engage in any criminal activity on the property." You definitely want to have such language in your rental agreement. Sec. 704.14 requires that all residential rental agreements in Wisconsin must contain the language set forth in the statute verbatim (i.e. word for word - no summaries allowed). If you have failed to include the domestic abuse protections language then your rental agreement will be void if the agreement also includes language allowing you to terminate a tenant's tenancy if the tenant or their guest have engaged in criminal activity. So the key here is to make sure that your rental agreement contains the mandatory notice of domestic abuse protections set forth in sec. 704.14.

Wisconsin residential landlords need to make sure that their rental agreements do not contain any of the aforementioned "10 Deadly Sins." Failure to remove such illegal provisions will result in your rental agreement being declared void and unenforceable and may even expose you to a lawsuit for double damages and attorney's fees by the tenant.

Act 76 - Wisconsin's New Landlord Tenant Law - Part 5: Domestic Violence Notice Langauge & More Prohibited Rental Agreement Provisions

Act 76 has made many changes to Landlord-Tenant law in Wisconsin, some of which I have explained in prior blog posts. One of the biggest changes, which I have not yet blogged about, is the requirement that a landlord include language notifying tenants of certain domestic abuse protections in all rental agreements or addenda as of March 1, 2014.

The required language is set forth in sec. 704.14, Wis. Stats. and must be included verbatim in the rental agreement - it cannot be modified or summarized.

The language that must be included is:

NOTICE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTIONS

(1) As provided in section 106.50 (5m) (dm) of the Wisconsin statutes, a tenant has a defense to an eviction action if the tenant can prove that the landlord knew, or should have known, the tenant is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking and that the eviction action is based on conduct related to domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking committed by either of the following:

(a) A person who was not the tenant's invited guest.

(b) A person who was the tenant's invited guest, but the tenant has done either of the following:

1. Sought an injunction barring the person from the premises.

2. Provided a written statement to the landlord stating that the person will no longer be an invited guest of the tenant and the tenant has not subsequently invited the person to be the tenant's guest.

(2) A tenant who is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking may have the right to terminate the rental agreement in certain limited situations, as provided in section 704.16 of the Wisconsin statutes. If the tenant has safety concerns, the tenant should contact a local victim service provider or law enforcement agency.

(3) A tenant is advised that this notice is only a summary of the tenant's rights and the specific language of the statutes governs in all instances.

Unfortunately many landlords are not even aware of this new requirement. Others complain that this will make their rental agreements 1/2 page longer. Depending on formatting - this very well may be true. Nonetheless, any rental agreements that are entered into or renewed as of March 1, 2014, must include this language. If your rental agreement does not contain this language you your rental agreement will be declared void and unenforceable.

Why is that you ask? Keep reading.

Act 76 also modified and created additional provisions that cannot be included in a Landlord's rental agreement. If a landlord includes any prohibited provision in his/her rental agreement the lease will be void and unenforceable. I affectionately refer to these illegal provisions as the "10 Deadly Sins."

Act 76 created the 10th Deadly Sin which is directly related to the DV protection language discussed above.

A rental agreement will be void and unenforceable if it allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant for a crime committed in relation to the rental property if it does not also include the new domestic abuse protection language set forth in sec. 704, 14, Wis. Stats.

This is huge. So hopefully any rental agreements that you have entered into since March 1st of this year contain this required language. If they do not, you should immediately create an Addendum to your rental agreement that includes the DV notice language and send it to your tenants immediately so that you are in compliance. If you are using pre-printed rental agreement forms you must insure that they have been updated to include this language. I can assure you that the rental agreement form that I draft for Wisconsin Legal Blank Co. has had this language added. Going forward you only should be using the WLB rental agreement form that has a publication date of 2/17/14 or later.

Act 76 also modified the 9th Deadly Sin which was created by Act 143 (which became law in March 31, 2012). The "old" 9th Deadly Sin stated that a rental agreement was void if it allowed a landlord to evict a tenant as a result of a crime committed in or on the rental property if the tenant could not have reasonably prevented the crime. This language was problematic for many landlords. As such the 9th Deadly Sin was modified in Act 76 to read:

A rental agreement will be void and unenforceable if it contains a provision that allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant based solely on a crime being committed if the tenant, or someone lawfully living with them, is a victim of that crime.

Hopefully there will not be any new Deadly Sins created in the near future. If there are, we will end up having more clauses that cannot be included in a residential rental agreement than can be included ; ).

Revised Wisconsin Legal Blank Forms Will Be Available on Monday, February 17th

As I hope most of you are aware, Wisconsin passed a new law that will great affect landlord-tenant law - Act 76. Whenever the law is changed, there is usually a need to revise and/or update your rental documents to comply with the law. That is definitely the case with the changes from Act 76.

As such, I have had to update many of the rental documents that are sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank.

The new law becomes effective March 1, 2014. So for those of you that use the WLB forms you will want to use these revised forms for any new tenancies that commence on or after March 1, 2014.

The following Wisconsin Legal Blank forms have been revised:

1. Residential Rental Agreement (#19)

The changes made to this form are very important. As of March 1, 2014, it will be required that all residential rental agreements include certain language that provides notice of domestic abuse protections. Act 76 states that a rental agreement will be void and unenforceable if it allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy for a crime and the rental agreement fails to include the domestic violence notice language. As a result of having to add this additional language verbatim the Residential Rental Agreement form will be much longer.

Several other changes and modifications were made to this form as well including:

a. Revision of the "Extermination Costs" section

b. Addition of a "Non-Waiver" section

c. Addition of a "Criminal Activity Prohibited" section

d. The "Notice to Vacate" section was modified to clarify the law better regarding terminating a lease for term. The 30 day notice required to terminate a month to month tenancy was changed to 28 days to coincide with Wisconsin statutes.

e. The "Abandoned Property" section was modified to comply with the law changes in Act 76

f. Additional language was added to clarify that operating a business or providing child care services are not allowed in the rental unit.

g. Additional language was added in the section entitled "Security Deposit" to state that if the repair costs for tenant damages are not known in time for the sending of the security deposit transmittal letter that a "good faith" estimate may be used.

f. Clarifying language was added to the "Breach and Termination" section.

2. Residential Lease Renewal or Notice To Vacate (#970) -- Was updated to comply with Act 76's changes regarding abandoned property.

3. Notice of Rent Increase (for Month to Month Tenant) (#332) - Was updated to comply with Act 76's changes regarding abandoned property.

4. Check-In / Check-Out Sheet (#997 and #993) -- Was updated to to comply with Act 76 with regards to the title and the "When To Use" explanation as well as some stylistic changes.

5. Rental Application (#996) - Eliminated some sections that were not needed and could possibly cause problems for landlords, added some additional instructions for applicant, restructured the layout of the form, and reworded much of the language at the bottom of the signature page.

6. Nonstandard Rental Provisions (#984) -- Rewrote the "When To Use" section to better explain the purpose of a NSRP document, removed the "Miscellaneous Matters" section of the form, revised the statutory references, and fixed some grammatical issue.

I can't stress enough how important it is to use updated/revised forms when they become available. I still see landlords using the Residential Rental Agreement that was drafted over 10 years ago. There are important reasons that rental documents are updated: (1) To comply with law changes, (2) To eliminate problem language that has caused landlords problems. Each new version of these forms are supposed to make your life easier. Using old forms is just an invitation for problems. Effective, March 1, 2014, failing to use the revised Residential Rental Agreement may result in your Agreement being declared void and unenforceable.

T

Top 10 Pitfalls That Landlords Should Avoid

Those of you that missed the last AASEW membership meeting on Monday, April 15, 2013, missed a great meeting and a great presentation. The featured presenter was John "Dr. Rent" Fischer, a Wausau-area landlord and rental property manager, who spoke to a packed house that Monday. John's presentation was dynamic, educational and at times pretty darn funny.

With John's permission, I am providing you with a link to John's handout from the meeting which was entitled "Top Ten Pitfalls That Landlords Should Avoid."

Like any good Top 10 list (a la David Letterman), John presented these pitfalls in reverse oreder based on importance. The pitfalls to avoid included:

10. Mailing the 5 Day Notice

9. Digging The Hole Too Deep

8. Incomplete Applications

7. Not Asking The Right People (about your rental applicant)

6. Auto-Renewing A Lease

5. 14 Day Notice (or NOT)

4. "Do-It-Yourself" Leases or Rental Forms

3. Misuse of CCAP

2. Carpet Cleaning

1. That Lease is HOW LONG?

As John stated during his presentation, there are a lot of things that are beyond our control that make life as a landlord very difficult at times. As such, we certainly do not want to make life more difficult for ourselves based on a lack of knowledge of landlord-tenant laws . . . unless we are masochists, that is.

The AASEW has another great meeting scheduled for May 20, 2013 at 7 pm at the Best Western Midway in Brookfield about "How To Finance Real Estate Transactions In The Current Economy."

Are Wisconsin Residential Leases Worth The Paper They Are Written On?

In my personal opinion the answer is often "no." The reason being is due to Wisconsin's requirement that a landlord make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit if a tenant is evicted or decides to vacate early, and if this is not done, the landlord is not entitled to further rent from the breaching tenant.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that leases in Wisconsin are worthless and that you should never use them. What I am saying however is that they are not as wonderful as some people think they are and landlords need to understand there limitations.

Let me digress to provide some additional background.

First, you should always have a written rental agreement in place with your tenant. The days of verbal agreements over a handshake are long gone.

Second, a "rental agreement" is a general term that includes both leases and periodic tenancies (such as a month to month tenancy. A lease is an agreement for a specific term. It has a beginning date and an end date. Periodic tenancies -- like a month to month -- are not leases as there is no end date and they continue until they are terminated by either the landlord or the tenant.

So when I talk about a "lease" in this blog post I am only referring to those rental agreements that are for a specific term. By signing a lease, a tenant is agreeing to reside in a specified rental unit until the end of the lease term and to pay rent during the entire lease term. So what happens when a tenant decides not to fulfill the term of his or her lease?

Well, according to sec. 704.29 of the Wisconsin Statutes, if this happens, a landlord may only purse the breaching tenant for the remainder of the rent owed under the lease if that landlord has made reasonable efforts to reduce the amount of rent that the tenant is responsible for by attempting to re-rent the unit for the tenant. Translation - if a tenant breaks the lease, a landlord is required to spend time and energy to limit the damage to the tenant for his/her own action of breaking the lease, if landlord does not do this, landlord is entitled to nothing. Seems fair . . . . NOT.

Sec. 704.29 (1) specifically states:

"If a tenant unjustifiably removes from the premises prior to the effective date for termination of the tenant's tenancy and defaults in the payment of rent, or if the tenant is removed for failure to pay rent or any other breach of a lease, the landlord can recover rent and damages except amounts which the landlord could mitigate in accordance with this section . . ."

The statute continues as follows:

"In any claim against a tenant for rent and damages, or for either, the amount of recovery is reduced by the the net rent obtainable by reasonable efforts to rerent the premises."

"Reasonable efforts" means those steps that the landlord would have taken to rent the premises if they had been vacated in due course, provided that those steps are in accordance with local rental practice for similar properties."

So even though the tenant is in the predicament s/he is in due to their own actions, a landlord is not legally entitled to collect rent for the remainder of the lease from the tenant unless the landlord tries to re-rent the unit for the tenant.

If the landlord is able to re-rent the unit for the same amount or more, then the breaching tenant is officially "off of the hook" and not responsible for any further rent because the landlord now found a new paying tenant.

Yes, it is true that a landlord is entitled to recoup from a breaching tenant the costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent the unit. So the breaching tenant is responsible for the advertising costs and maybe the costs of a "for rent" sign, or the costs of running a credit report for the new tenant. Not very much of a payback in my opinion.

Additionally, the courts that I encounter will not reimburse a landlord for the lost time and energy spent getting the unit into shape for re-renting (unless it is damaged), showing the unit to prospective tenants, or reviewing new applications. That non-reimbursable work is considered to be the "cost of doing business" for the landlord. OUCH.

So essentially, a landlord is required to do all this work to fix a problem created by a tenant, and if the landlord doesn't do that extra work, the landlord is not even entitled to attempt to recover rent for the remainder of the lease term from the departing tenant. If the landlord does that extra work and re-rents the unit, then the landlord is still not entitled to recovery of rent for the remainder of the lease term from the breaching tenant, because now the landlord is getting rent from someone else. So essentially the breaching tenant, despite being the person that created the problem in the first place, gets off scot-free.

Only when the landlord does the extra work involved in re-renting the unit, and is unable to do so, is the breaching tenant legally responsible for the rent for the remainder of the lease (or until it eventually is re-rented, whichever comes first). From a practical standpoint, that is a hollow victory as by this time the tenant is long gone, the security deposit most likely does not cover more than 1 month of the rent, and even if you can locate the tenant they may not be ""collectible."

I would like to reiterate that the goal of this blog post is not for all landlords to tear up your leases and only enter into month to month tenancies going forward. There are still tenants out there (I think?) that if they sign a lease, will honor it. They will either stay for the entire lease term or if for some reason they must vacate early - they will honor their lease commitment. Although I am sad to say that I am seeing fewer and fewer of these type of tenants these days -- most cannot afford to pay rent for two homes and opt to pay the landlord that is currently keeping a roof over their head rather than the landlord that used to provide them shelter.

My aim is to insure that landlords using leases understand the legal limitations and requirements involved when a tenant breaks that lease. A landlord cannot just sit back and do nothing to re-rent the unit and expect to collect future rent from the exiting tenant. A lease is not some panacea that guarantees you the right to collect future rent when a tenant ditches. You are only entitled to that rent if you make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit for the breaching tenant and then only if the tenant can be located and is collectible.

So you need to ask yourself, is my lease worth the paper that it is written on? Only you can answer that question.

So Are Illegal Provisions In Wisconsin Residential Rental Agreements Severable Or Not?

SHORT ANSWER: Yes . . . and No.

LONG ANSWER: The newly passed law referred to as the Landlord's Omnibus Law (Act 143) adresses this issue but provides contradictory answers.

In newly created sec. 704.02 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the law states quite clearly that the provisions of a rental agreement or lease are severable. Specifically, it states that if any provision of a rental agreement is rendered void or unenforceable by reason of any statute, rule, regulation or judicial order, the invalidity or unenforceability of that provision does not affect the other provisions of the rental agreement that can be given effect without the legal provision.

So according to sec. 704.02, the answer to question posed in the title of this blog post would be a resounding "Yes."

BUT . .

In the very same law, the legislature also decided to create a new section 704.44 that copies a regulation from ATCP 134 entitled (Residential Rental Provisions), specifically ATCP 134.08 entitled "Prohibited Rental Agreement Provisions," which sets forth 7 things that cannot be included in a Wisconsin residential rental agreement - which I affectionately refer to as the 7 Deadly Sins.

The legislature also decided to add an 8th and 9th provision that cannot be included in residential rental agreements in Wisconsin. So now I have to refer to the outlawed provisions as "The 9 Deadly Sins" which just doesn't have the same ring to it. : (

The 9 provisions that if included in a residential rental agreement will render the agreement void are:

1. Any provision that allows a landlord to do any of the following because a tenant has contacted an entity for law enforcement services, health services, or safety services: (a) increase rent, (b) decrease services, (c) Bring an action for possession of the premises, (d) refuse to renew a rental agreement, (e) threaten to take any action under pars. (a) to (d). This is one of the new clauses added by the legislature is Act 143.

2. A provision that authorizes the eviction or exclusion of a tenant from the premises, other than by judicial procedures as provided under ch. 799.

3. A provision that provides for an acceleration of rent payments in the event of tenant default or breach of obligations under the rental agreement, or otherwise waives the landlord's obligation to mitigate damages as provided in s. 704.29.

4. A provision that requires payment by the tenant of attorney fees or costs incurred by the landlord in any legal action or dispute arising under the rental agreement. This subsection does not prevent a landlord or tenant from recovering costs or attorney's fees under a court order under ch. 799 or 814.

5. A provision that authorizes the landlord or an agent of the landlord to confess judgment against the tenant in any action arising under the rental agreement.

6. A provision that states that the landlord is not liable for property damage or personal injury caused by negligent acts or omissions of the landlord. This subsection does not affect ordinary maintenance obligations of a tenant under s. 704.07 or assumed by a tenant under a rental agreement or other written agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

7. A provision that imposes liability on a tenant for any of the following: (a) personal injury arising from causes clearly beyond the tenant's control, (b) property damage caused by natural disasters or by persons other than the tenant or the tenant's guests or invitees. This paragraph does not affect ordinary maintenance obligations of a tenant under s. 704.07 or assumed by a tenant under a rental agreement or other written agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

8. A provision that waives any statutory or other legal obligation on the part of the landlord to deliver the premises in a fit or habitable condition or to maintain the premises during the tenant's tenancy.

9. A provision that allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant if a crime is committed in or on the rental property, even if the tenant could not reasonably have prevented the crime. This is the other new clause added by the legislature in Act 143.

So according to sec. 704.44, the answer to question posed in the title of this blog post would be "yes . . . unless it is one of the 9 deadly sins which if included in a Wisconsin residential rental agreement or lease would not be severable and in fact would render the entire agreement void."

Why can't the law be more simple and clear?

Newly revised Landlord-Tenant Law Forms Available at Wisconsin Legal Blank on April 2 and April 3, 2012.

Wisconsin's Landlord Omnibus Law (Act 143) went into effect today - April 1, 2012. As a result of the new law it was necessary for me to update many of the landlord-tenant law forms that are sold at Wisconisn Legal Blank.

As of Monday, April 2, 2012, the following revised forms will be available:

1. Residential Rental Agreement (Form #19)

- Added language required in order for landlord to be able to dispose of tenant's abandoned property immediately after they vacate.

- Added language about any illegal clause in the rental agreement being severable from the n9on-illegal clauses.

- Correction of some grammar and punctuation mistakes.

2. Nonstandard Rental Provisions (Form #984)

- Added langauge required in order for landlord to be able to dispose of tenant's abandoned property immediately after they vacate.

- Revised language as to when landlord must return security deposit or supply security deposit itemization letter when tenant vacates prior to end of lease term.

- General revisions to the language of each nonstandard rental provision to comply better with the holding in the Tschantz case.

3. Notice of Rent Increase in Month to Month Tenancies (Form #332)

- Added langauge required in order for landlord to be able to dispose of tenant's abandoned property immediately after they vacate.

4. Residential Lease Renewal or Notice To Vacate (Form #970)

- Added langauge required in order for landlord to be able to dispose of tenant's abandoned property immediately after they vacate.

5. Tenant Inspection Sheet (Check-In - Check-Out Form)

- Revised the title of this form to comply with the title used in the new law.

NOTE: It is now required that a landlord give this document to tenant's upon occupancy. So if you have not previously used this document you need to start doing so now.

As of Tuesday, April 3, 2012 the following revised forms will be available for purchase at Wisconsin Legal Blank

6. 5 Day Notice To Pay Rent or Vacate (Form #328)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled to holdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

- Added a line for "Total Amount Due"

7. 5 Day Notice To Correct Breach or Vacate (Form #330)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

8. 5 Day Notice To Vacate - Nuisance (Form #329)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

9. 14 Day Notice To Vacate for Failure To Pay Rent (Form #768)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

- Added a line for "Total Amount Due"

10. 14 Day Notice To Vacate For Breach of Rental Agreement (Form #767)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

11. 28 Day Notice Terminating Tenancy (Form #327)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

12. 30 Day Notice To Correct Breach or Vacate (Form #325)

- Changed the word "may" to "shall" when advising the tenant that landlord is entitled toholdover damages of, at a minimum, double the daily rent for the holdover period.

Sometime in the near future the following revised form will be available at Wisconsin Legal Blank:

13. Rules & Regulations (Form #994)

- Will inlcude major revisions including language, organization and format.

- Will include revised language regarding a tenant's responsibility for the actions of their guests, invitees and family members that will comply with the law and not run afoul of "Deadly Sin #8" created by the new law.

2011 Wisconsin Act 143 (Landlord Omnibus Law) Also Applies To Commercial Landlord-Tenant Law

While this blog primarily focuses on residential landlord-tenant law, on occasion I also touch on issues applicable to commercial landlord-tenant law. This is one such instance.

Commercial landlord-tenant is more straightforward than residential in my opinion because commercial tenancies are less regulated than residential. Typically what a commercial landlord and tenant agreed to and placed into their lease agreement is what governs. The Wisconsin Administrative Code's ATCP 134 does not apply to commercial leases and most of Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes does not apply to commercial leases unless (1) the parties had no written lease, or (2) the lease was silent as to certain issues (see sec. 704.03 and 704.05 respectively).

Well, that has all changed now with the passage of 2011 Wisconsin Act 143 which was signed into law last week and will take effect on March 31, 2012.

While almost all of the attention paid to the new law surrounded its effects on residential landlord-tenant law, the law also impacts the commercial arena as well. I too was caught up in the effect Act 143 would have on residential landlords and missed the applicability of this new law to commercial landlords initially --- thanks to Bob Anderson of Legal Aid of Wisconsin for redirecting me : )

As I have mentioned in prior posts, this legislation was fast-tracked for some reason and rushing new laws through the legislative process is never a good thing. In fact it is a recipe for disaster.

It appears that the legislators did not realize that Senate Bill 466 -- the precursor to Act 143 -- was written in such a way as to encompass commercial landlord-tenant law. When it was brought to their attention, a quick amendment was made to exclude one portion of the new law (the section that makes a rental agreement void if it contains certain prohibited language) from the commercial arena, but apparently there was not enough time to deal with the other sections of the new law, which now will apply to both commercial and residential tenancies.

So what do we have?

The following provisions of Act 143 apply to both commercial landlord-tenant law as well as residential:

1. Moratorium on evictions

2. Severability of rental agreement provisions

3. Disposition of abandoned property

4. Requirement that landlords receive an award of holdover damages when appropriate

5. Acceptance of past due rents

6. Withholding from and return of security deposits

7. Making any violation of chapter 704 a possible unfair trade practice

If you are unfamiliar with the above sections of the new law you should read my prior post summarizing the new law.

Number 1-5 above actually benefit commercial landlords. However numbers 6 and 7 are problematic

By adding ATCP 134.06, which focuses on the withholding from and the return of security deposits, to chapter 704, the new law has now made these requirements applicable to commercial landlords as well. Prior to Act 143 being passed, there was no law addressing what a commercial landlord could withhold from a commercial tenant's security deposit, nor was there any law regarding when that security deposit (or an itemization as to how the security deposit was applied) had to be returned to the commercial tenant. Well thanks to Act 143, now there is.

Act 143 allows a commercial landlord to only make deductions for the following items from a commercial tenant's security deposit:

704.28 Withholding from and return of security deposits. (1) Standard withholding provisions. When a landlord returns a security deposit to a tenant after the tenant vacates the premises, the landlord may withhold from the full amount of the security deposit only amounts reasonably necessary to pay for any of the following:

(a) Except as provided in sub. (3), tenant damage, waste, or neglect of the premises.

(b) Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, subject to s. 704.29.

(c) Payment that the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent.

(d) Payment that the tenant owes for direct utility service provided by a government-owned utility, to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment.

(e) Unpaid monthly municipal permit fees assessed against the tenant by a local unit of government under s. 66.0435 (3), to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment.

(f) Any other payment for a reason provided in a nonstandard rental provision document described in sub. (2).

So if a commercial landlord would now like to deduct anything other then the items listed in (a) - (e) above, then that landlord needs to start using a separate written document entitled "Nonstandard Rental Provisions" which must list the additional fees/costs that can be deducted from a commercial tenant's security deposit.

Additionally, Act 143 now requires a commercial landlord to either (1) return the tenant's security deposit to them, or (2) send them an itemization explaining how that security deposit was applied, within 21 days of the following:

(4) Timing for return. A landlord shall deliver or mail to a tenant the full amount of any security deposit paid by the tenant, less any amounts that may be withheld under subs. (1) and (2), within 21 days after any of the following:

(a) If the tenant vacates the premises on the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the rental agreement terminates.

(b) If the tenant vacates the premises before the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the tenant's rental agreement terminates or, if the landlord rerents the premises before the tenant's rental agreement terminates, the date on which the new tenant's tenancy begins.

(c) If the tenant vacates the premises after the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises.

(d) If the tenant is evicted, the date on which a writ of restitution is executed or the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises, whichever occurs first.

Commercial landlords never had to worry about that 21 day time frame before -- now they do. Needless to say it is much more difficult and time consuming to do a walkthrough of a giant commercial space and itemize any damages or cleaning charges than it is for a 500 square foot residential rental unit. I'm not exactly sure how commercial landlords will be able to comply with this time frame, but they will need to find a way, or else they may have to to their tenant double damages and attorney's fees. Which leads me to the next concern . . .

Act 143 now makes any violation of chapter 704 a possible violation of unfair trade practices, which pursuant to sec. 100.20, Wis. Stats. allows a tenant to sue a landlord for double damages and attorney's fees. Prior to Act 143 a commercial landlord was not in this predicament because unfair trade practices were set forth in ATCP 134 which only applied to residential tenancies. But now that Act 143 incorporates some provisions of ATCP 134 into chapter 704 -- and chapter 704 applies to commercial landlord-tenant relations -- things are different.

Here is the language of the new law:

704.95 Practices regulated by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. Practices in violation of this chapter may also constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair trade practices under s. 100.20. However, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection may not issue an order or promulgate a rule under s. 100.20 that changes any right or duty under this chapter.

I guess the only positive is that the new law says "may constitute" instead of "shall constitute" however to a commercial landlord that never had to worry about anything they did constituting an unfair trade practice and subjecting themselves to being sued for double damages and attorney's fees, I'm sure this will be of little consolation.

So not only will Act 143 require commercial landlords to make some modifications to the language in their leases, but it will require them to completely change how they run their commercial proeprty management businesses starting March 31, 2012 ---- 2 DAYS FROM NOW!!!!!

Landlord's Omnibus Bill Signed Into Law - Read It Now

Governor Walker did sign the Landlord's Omnibus Bill into law.

I appreciate the effort of everyone that called the Governor's office asking him to veto the bill due to its deficiencies.

Here is a link to the new law. Much easier to read than having to go back and forth between the orginal bill, the Substitute bill and the two amendments.

The two main concerns that I have with the law and which caused me to ask that the bill be vetoed. They are section 35M and section 36.

The AASEW has already spoken with Sen. Lassee's office regarding these two major problems and I will keep you informed if and when anything is done about them.

And yes, I will be reviewing all of Wisconsin Legal Blank's forms in the near future and making the necessary revisions - if needed - and will let you know when they will be available : )

Upon Further Reflection, I Think The Governor Should Veto The Landlord's Omnibus Bill

I spent several hours yesterday reviewing and thinking about the new Landlord's Omnibus Bill that is to be signed into law today by Governor Walker at 4 pm.

I then spent hours of time trying to summarize the new law in yesterday's blog post in an easy to read and understand format.

Since publishing the blog post yesterday I have a few more thoughts and concerns:

1. AASEW Board member and friend Tim Ballering pointed out to me that he believes that the new law as written will allow for any violation of Chapter 704 to be considered an unfair trade practice, thus allowing a tenant to sue his/her landlord for double damages and attorney's fees.

Here is the language at issue:

704.95 Practices regulated by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.

Practices in violation of this chapter may also constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair trade practices under s. 100.20. However, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection may not issue an order or promulgate a rule under s. 100.20 that changes any right or duty arising under this chapter.

In my prior post I did anticipate that this would allow for tenant's and attorney's to make arguments that any violation of Chapter 704 was an unfair trade practice and that concerned me. But after speaking with Tim and thinking about this in more deeply, and re-reading the new law - I think this is a major concern. So is this law saying that if a landlord improperly drafts or serves a 5 day notice that s/he can be sued by the tenant for double damages and attorney's fees? YES.

I believe that this is such a major problem that I will be contacting Governor Walker's office today before 4 pm and asking him to veto the bill.

2. The addition of the 8th Deadly Sin really concerns me. My friend and past Wisconsin Apartment Association President John Fischer succinctly addresses the problem with in an email that he sent to many in the industry which is reproduced below:

When the Housing Task force was looking at blight, blight went beyond just condition of the property, but it also went to criminal activity.

There has been a proposal that various apartment associations have been working on that would make it easier to evict a tenant for criminal activity. There is a “Crime Free Lease” program that started out west that is very popular with landlords and law enforcement. A few communities have started working on this program here in Wisconsin, but the biggest hurdle is that the key tool of this program is a “Crime Free Lease Addendum”. The problem is that this addendum is unenforceable under Wisconsin’s current laws.

The new law that is being signed by Governor Walker at 4 PM this afternoon (I have been invited to this private signing, but I want nothing to do with this) makes a large number of massive changes to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law. One of the most significant appears to be an answer to our attempts to allow for eviction for criminal activity. The new law would basically render a lease void if the lease contained language that criminal activity on a property would be a breach of the lease.

So there you have it. My take on this new law -- as well as many others in the industry -- is this new law will cause more harm then good. This is what happens when you try to rush legislation -- people do not have time to consider all of the different angles -- so I am planning on contacting Governor Walker and ask him to veto SB 446. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Thank you to tim Ballering and John Fischer for their thoughts, opinions, and guidance.

Landlord's Omnibus Bill -- with Amendments -- To Be Signed Into Law Today

One of the biggest pieces of pro-Landlord legislation in quite some time was passed by the Wisconsin Senate and adopted by the Assembly recently and will be signed into law by Governor Walker today. Unfortunately some of the pro-Landlord provisions were amended, diluted, or removed.

I am certainly not denouncing this new law. Many aspects of it will be very helpful to landlords. I just wish that more time had been allowed -- the bill was fast-tracked -- to allow for more discussion, thought and input and allowing for more notice. For instance, many of us in the rental industry were given one day advance notice before the public hearing on the bill which prevented many of us from attending.

I will attempt to summarize the new law in this post. As this new law plays out in the "real world" I am sure that I will be devoting additional blog posts to each provision in more detail.

The proposed effective date of this new law is March 31, 2012. So many of us will need to make some additions and/or modifications to our rental documents prior to that date.

Bankground of Legislation

The Landlord's mnibus bill (Senate Bill 466) was put on the "fast track" for reasons unknown to me. It was introduced on February 13, 2012 by Senator Lassee. A Substitute Amendement 1 was offered by Senator Lassee on February 29, 2012. Senator Waangard then offered the first amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 6th which was passed March 13th. Senator Lassee then offered a second amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 12th which was passed on March 13th. The bill will be signed into law by Governor Walker today - March 21st. Approximately one month from introduction to passage into law is very fast for the legislative process.

The key provisions of the new law are:

1. Moratorium on Evictions

This provision of the original bill remained untouched by the Substitute Amendment and the two amendments to the Substitute Amendment. The new law prohibits any municipality from imposing a moratorium on eviction actions. If a municipality has a current ordinance that contradicts this new law it cannnot be enforced.

We now must hope that individual counties, courts, and commissioners adhere to this law. While I don't anticipate courts ignoring this new law, I do anticipate court's continuing to use the "stay" provisions of sec. 799.44(3) to give tenants additional time to vacate during the holidays. So while municipalities will no longer be allowed to impose moratoriums, courts can still prevent evictions during holidays, creating the same result.

2. Severability of Rental Agreement Provisions

The original bill stated that any provision could be severed from the agreement. So if a landlord inadvertantly included a provision that was found to be improper or retaliatory in nature it could be removed and the remainder of the agreement could be enforced.

The Substitute Amendment diluted the above considerably by adding that if a rental agreement contains one of the "7 Deadly Sins" set forth in ATCP 134.08, the inclusion of any of those provisions cannot be removed and will render the entire rental agreement void and therefore unenforceable.

Amendment 1 to the Substitute Amendment went a step further and added an 8th illegal provision that if included in a rental agreement will cause the rental agreement to be void. The new illegal provision would include any language that allows a landlord to terminate a tenant's tenancy if a crime is committed in or on the rental property, even if the tenant couldn't reasonably have prevented the crime.

So in the end, the new law only allows the severability of certain rental provisions. If your rental agreement contains one of the 7 prohibited provisions set forth in ATCP 134.08 or the new prohibited provision created by this new law, your rental agreement will still be be void and unenforceable. Essentially, the new law takes the regulation ATCP 134.08 and codifies it into law.

More tragic is what the "8th Deady Sin" has most likely done to some other pro-Landlord legislation that I had hoped would become law -- the "Crime-Free Lease Addendum" bill. If you read my prior post on the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill you will see that this 8th Deadly Sin language effectively decapitates this proposed bill. This is a major disappointment as I believe that had the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill been passed it would have been the most significant piece of pro-Landlord legislation in years. Instead the "odds and ends" Landlord Omnibus bill seems to have killed it. Hopefully, I am wrong and it can be resurrected.

3. Dispostion of Tenant's Abandoned Property

Once again, the original version of this bill was awesome. It stated that any personal property left behind by a tenant could be considered abandoned and disposed of immediately in the landlord's discretion.

The Substitute Amendment modified the original bill by adding that any medical prescriptions and/or medical equipment left behind by the tenant must be held by the Landlord for 7 days. The Substitute Amendment also added that written notice must be sent to the tenant (and any secured party) prior to disposing of any titled vehicles or mobile homes deemed abandoned. I could live with both of those modifications.

However, the amendments to the Substitute Amendment added language that will require landlords to jump through a few hoops. The new law requires that a landlord provide written notice to the tenant at the time of entering into the rental agreement, and at each renewal of the rental agreement, informing the tenant that the landlord will not hold any property left by the tenant and that such property will be deemed abandoned and will be disposed of. Failure to provide this written notice to the tenant requires a landlord hold the abandoned property fpr a period of time as set forth in sec. 704.05 (5), Wis. Stats.

Essentially landlords will now be required to add a new language to their rental agreements -- and any renewal agreements -- advising tenants that any property left behind will be considered abandoned and can be disposed of. Looks like there will be a revised Rental Agreement being sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., in the near future : )

4. Information Check-In Form

This is one of the provisions of the original bill that I didn't care for. A landlord will now be required to provide a standardized information check in sheet to each tenant that contains an itemized description of the premises. The Substitute Amendment merely added that this form must be given to the tenant at the time of occupancy rather than at the time of signing of the rental agreement.

As I understand this law, this does not just mean that the landlord can give his new tenant a blank Information Check-In form to fill in -- which many landlords are already doing. Rather it means that the landlord must completely and thoroughly fill out the Information Check-In form to adequately describe the condition of the rental unit and give it to the tenant. So if you are not thorough in your description of the renal unit this document could be used against you by the tenant, after the tenancy has ended. This new provision of the law will clearly cause additional work for landlords and I fear could harm the less detail-oriented landlords out there when pursuing a tenant for damages to the unit or withholding portions of the tenant's security deposit for damages.

5. Holdover Damages Are Mandated

The new law requires that landlords be awarded holdover damages. If a tenant stays in the rental unit beyond his tenancy, the landlord is now legally entitled to -- at a minimum -- double the daily rent for the time period after the tenancy ended (i.e. the notice expired) until the tenant actually vacates the unit.

This is a positive change because current law (sec. 704.27) only states that a landlord "may" be awarded holdover damages -- and some courts would not award landlords these damages. The new law says that a court "shall" award a landlord holdover damages, at a minimum.

6. Withholding From A Tenant's Security Deposit

The new law has merely codified the provision of ATCP 134.06(3), which states that a landlord is allowed to withhold the following from a tenant's security deposit: (a) Tenant damage, waste or neglect of the premises, (b) Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, (c) Payment which the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent, (d) Payment which the tenant owes for direct utility service provided by a government-owned utility, to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment, (e) Unpaid mobile home parking fees which a local unit of government has assessed against the tenant to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment, (f) Other reasons authorized in the Nonstandard Rental Provisions.

The new law also adopts the portions of ATCP 134.06 which state that a landlord cannot withhold from a tenant's security deposit for normal "wear and tear" or other losses which the tenant cannot reasonably be held responsible.

7. Timing For Return of Security Deposit

The original bill indicated that in situations where the tenant broke the lease prior to the end of the term that the landlord need not return the security deposit or provide an accounting of how the security deposit was applied until 21 days after the lease term ended or within 21 days of a new tenant taking occupancy. This langauge is a substantial improvement over current law as it allows a landlord to hold the security deposit until he is able to determine if any future rent will owed by the breaching tenant if the landlord cannot locate a new tenant to re-rent the property to. I explain this issue in more detail in my earlier post on the Landlord's Omnibus Bill.

The Substitute Amendment waters this down a bit. The new law will now codifies ATCP 134.06(2)(a) and states that a landlord shall deliver or mail to a tenant the security deposit or itemization of how the security deposit was applied within 21 days after any of the following: (a) if the tenant vacates on the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the rental agreement terminates, (b) if the tenant vacates before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the rental agreement terminates or, if the unit is re-rented before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the new tenancy begins, (c) if the tenant vacates after the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant vacated, (d) if the tenant was evicted, the date on which the writ was executed or the date that the landlord learns that the tenant vacated.

So the new law kept the good part of the original bill but by codifying ATCP 134.06(2)(a) the landlord must return a tenant's security deposit or send out the itemization of how the security deposit was applied earlier than when the original bill stated in situations where the tenant was evicted.

8. Disclosure of Code Violations

The original bill required that a landlord disclose to any prospective tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations prior to the signing of a rental agreement, accepting of a security deposit or accepting of earnest money.

The second Amendment to the Substitute Amendment modified the original bill and as a result the new law requires a landlord to disclose to a new tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations if the landlord has actual knowledge of the violation (rather than if the landlord had received notice of the violation from a housing code enforcement agency as under the original bill).

Specifically the new law requires the disclosure to the new tenant if the following four conditions are met: (a) landlord has actual knowledge of the violation, (b) the violation affects the rental unit or a common area, (c) the violation presents a significant threat to the tenant's health or safety, (d) the violation has not been corrected.

9. Request for Repairs

The orginal bill required that a tenant first notify a landlord in writing of any repair or maintenance issue, and then allow adequate time for the landlord to address the issue, before reporting the problem to the building inspector, elected official, or housing code enforement agency. The Substitute Amendment removed this provision in its entirety so the law has not changed -- tenants are allowed to call whomever they want to complain about maintenance issues without any requirement that they first notify the landlord of the problem.

10. Acceptance of Past Due Rent

The new law states that if a landlord has filed an eviction against a tenant and the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant during the course of the eviction, that the court cannot dismiss the eviction solely based on the landlord's acceptance of past due rent from the tenant.

I really like this provision of the new law becasue currently, many tenants and their attorneys argue that if an eviction is pending and a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant, that the landlord's acceptance of that rent has effectively "waived" the landlord's right to proceed with the eviction.

11. Tenant Remedies

The Substitute Amendment added that any violation of chapter 704, including the provisions of the new bill, may constitute an unfair trade practice which may allow the tenant to sue a landlord for double damages and attorney's fees.

I don't like this new provision of the law for one simple reason. I believe it will be used by tenants and tenant's attorneys to seek double damages and attorney's fees whenever a landlord allegedly violates any provision of chapter 704, whether the violation is a true unfair trade practice violation or not. Only the provisions of ATCP 134, which will be codified in ch. 704 under this new law, deal with unfair trade practices. Nonetheless, I anticipate that we will see some very creative arguments by tenant's and their attorneys as to why a tenant should be awarded double damages and attorney's fees for violations of chapter 704 that are not unfair trade practice violations.

Now we will have to wait and see how this new law "plays out" in the real world of landlording. Some of the key things everyone will need to address before March 31, 2012, when the law takes effect are:

1. Make sure any rental agreement you enter into with a tenant after March 31, 2012, does not contain any language that would be in violation of the "8th Deadly Sin" which essentially means eliminating or modifying any language similar to that found in the Crime-Free Lease Addendum.

2. Make sure to add language in your rental agreement, and any renewal documents, stating that any property left behind by the tenant will be considered to be abandoned and will be disposed of by the landlord without any further notice to tenant (except for medical prescriptions and medical devices, mobile homes and titled vehicles).

3. Rename your Check-In / Check Out Sheet as "Information Check-In Sheet" and insure that you provide any new tenants with a completed copy of the form thoroughly documenting the condition of the rental unit.

4. Disclose any code violations that you have actual knowledge of that may present a significant threat to the tenant's health or safety before entering into a rental agreement or accepting a security deposit or earnest money.

Good Luck Everyone

ADDITION: 3/21/12 - Make sure you read my 3/21/12 post about why I now think this new law will actually hurt landlords more than help them

ADDED 4/11/12 -- Here is the link to the new law.

ADDED 4/11/12 - Here is a link to an article I recently authored on the new law.

ADDED 4/11/12 - Here is a link to the newly revised Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 704 re: Landlord and Tenant

You Will Not Want To Miss AASEW's Fourth Annual Landlord Boot Camp on Saturday Feb. 25th

Landlording can be pretty complex, with a seemingly never ending myriad of paperwork, rules, landlord-tenant laws and simple mistakes that can cost you thousands of dollars.

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin's Fourth Annual “Landlord Boot Camp” can help you navigate these treacherous waters and teach you how to run your properties with greater profit and less hassles.

I have given similar landlord-tenant law seminars to fellow attorneys, landlords, and property manager organizations throughout the state for other state-wide semianr companies that charge attendees $300-$400. This is your opportunity to learn all of the same information at a huge discount through the Apartment Association.

Who: Taught by Attorney Tristan R. Pettit (who drafts the landlord tenant forms for Wisconsin Legal Blank)

When: Saturday, February 25th, 2012. 8:30 am – 5 pm

Where: Clarion Hotel 5311 S. Howell Avenue, Milwaukee [Map]

Included: 100 plus page manual/outline to help you put what you learn into practice plus helpful forms.

Cost: $159 for AASEW members and $249 for non-members. If you are not a member of AASEW but are a member of another landlord/apartment association the cost to attend will be $199.

Specials: Not a member? Pay just a dollar more and enjoy a 2012 AASEW membership.

Wisconsin landlord-tenant laws are constantly changing. To help keep you up to date we offer prior attendees a $50 discount.

Sign up by going to the AASEW's Landlord Boot Camp landing page where you can sign up online and pay via PayPal.

What you will learn at the Apartment Association's 2012 Landlord Boot Camp

Landlord Boot Camp covers everything that you need to know about residential Landlord Tenant law in Wisconsin, including:

1. How to properly screen prospective tenants.
2. How to draft written screening criteria to assist you in the selection process and protect you from discrimination complaints.
3. How to comply with both federal and state Fair Housing laws including how to handle with “reasonable modifications” and “reasonable accommodations” requests.
4. How to legally reject an applicant.
5. What rental documents you should be using and why.
6. When you should be using a 5-day notice versus a 14-day notice, 28-day notice, or 30-day notice and how to properly serve the notice on your tenant.
7. Everything you wanted to know (and probably even more than you wanted to know) about the Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134) and how to avoid having to pay double damages to your tenant for breaching ATCP 134.
8. When you are legally allowed to enter your tenant’s apartment.
9. How to properly draft an eviction summons and complaint.
10. What to do to keep the commissioner from dismissing your eviction suit.
11. What you can legally deduct from a security deposit.
12. How to properly draft a security deposit transmittal / 21 day letter.
13. How to handle pet damage.
14. What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property and how this may affect whether or not you file an eviction suit.
15. How to pursue your ex-tenant for damages to your rental property and past due rent (and whether it is even worth it to do so).

. . . and much more. There will also be time for questions and answers.

You get all this for less than you would pay for an hour of an attorney's time.

Last year’s AASEW Landlord Boot Camp was filled to capacity and we even had to turn a few people away. So call early to reserve your spot.

Call the Association at (414) 276-7378, email membership@apartmentassoc.org or go to our Landlord Boot Camp landing page to sign up online and reserve your spot.

Remember that “landlording” is a business — so take the time to educate yourself on how to better manage your business and avoid costly errors!

Landlords Should Treat Tenant Roommates As One Person To Better Understand Joint and Several Liability and Resolve Tenant Disputes

I receive many calls from landlords who have questions and concerns involving issues involving their tenant roommates. While the problems are often factually different the proper way to analyze the situation and arrive at a resolution to the problem, often depends on the same thing -- something called "joint and several liability."

Joint and several liability is a legal concept that, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is defined as "the liability of co-promisors of the same performance when each of them, individually, has the duty of fully performing the obligation. A liability is said to be joint and several when the creditor may demand payment or sue one or more of the parties to such liability separately, or all of them together at his option."

Confused yet? Let me try and explain joint and several liability more clearly than Mr. Black did.

Essentially joint and several liability means that each individual tenant is responsible for the full amount of the rent as well as any and all other obligations under the rental agreement.

I think it would be easier for landlords to comprehend the concept of joint and several liability if they would just think of and treat roommates as one person.

Here is an example:

A Landlord enters into a 12 month lease with Tenant A, Tenant B, and Tenant C. The monthly rent is $750. The security deposit is also $750.

The Landlord needs to remember that he has one lease with three tenants NOT three separate leases with one tenant. As such all three tenants are responsible for the full amount of rent. All three tenants are responsible for abiding by the rules and regulations. All three tenants are responsible for paying the security deposit. All three tenants are responsible for paying the full amount of any damages to the rental unit.

Instead of taking $250 from Tenant A, B, and C for rent (or the security deposit), the landlord should insist that rent be paid via one payment for the full amount. When landlords accept $250 from each tenant, the landlord is inadvertently telling the three tenants that each of them is only responsible for 1/3 of the rent -- that is wrong. Remember treat the roommates as one person - one person pays his entire rent not 1/3 of it.

I know many of you that have tenant roommates are thinking that there is nothing wrong with accepting three separate checks for $250 from your three tenants. You are correct, nothing is wrong, there is nothing wrong with doing that . . . AS LONG AS ALL OF THE TENANTS PAY RENT ALL OF THE TIME. But problems arise is when one tenant falls on hard times and doesn't have the money to pay rent. It is at this point that the other two tenants start telling the landlord, "well we paid my portion of the rent so you can't evict us." WRONG.

Once again, think of roommates as one person. When you have one tenant (no roommates), that tenant is responsible for paying the entire amount of the rent - not just a portion of it. The same goes with roommates. One roommate is not just responsible for paying 1/3 of the rent. Under joint and several liability, that one tenant roommate is responsible for paying all of the rent if the other tenants don't pay any rent. If Tenant A and Tenant B have no money to pay rent, then Tenant C better rise to the occasion and pay the full rent amount or else all three roommates can be evicted.

Tenant roommates do not understand the concept of joint and several liability. I believe it is in the landlord's best interest to take the time to teach his tenant roommates about joint and several liability and how it specifically applies to them and their roommate situation. The best way to do demonstrate joint and several liability to your tenant roommates, after you have had the discussion with them, is to make them write one check for rent. I tell my roommate tenants that they must pay rent with one check. I don't care who pays it but I will only accept one check for the full amount of rent. The tenants can fight amongst themselves as to how they divide up the rent amount or who owes what to whom. How they do that should not be the landlord's concern. The landlord wants to impress upon his tenant roommates that he expects the full amount of rent each month and if they do that then they can remain as tenants. If not, then they will be evicted.

So while it may seem a bit much to refuse to take more than one rent check from tenant roommates, I believe by making the tenants understand that they are not responsible for just a "portion" of the rent, a landlord can avoid a lot of problems in the future.

Let's turn our focus to tenant roommates and the security deposit. If a landlord makes the mistake of accepting $250 from each of his three tenant roommates to apply to the $750 total security deposit, I believe that the landlord is sending his new tenants the wrong message again. Whether he is aware of it or not, the landlord has unintentionally informed his tenants that each of them are only responsible for 1/3 of the security deposit and therefore only responsible for 1/3 of any damage to the unit.

How many times have you heard one tenant say that the hole in the wall was caused by the other roommate who came home drunk one night and put his fist through the drywall? And then the next comment out of that tenant's mouth was, "so you should take the cost to repair that wall out of his portion of the security deposit."

Each tenant is jointly and severally liable for paying the total amount of the security deposit and for the total amount of any damage caused to a rental property regardless of which tenant caused the damage. A tenant roommate is not just responsible for "his portion" of any damage. Under joint and several liability, if the cost to repair the wall is $500 then the landlord can keep $500 of the security deposit and the three roommates can fight over how to split up the remaining $250.

What if your tenant roommates cause major damage to the rental unit that goes well beyond the security deposit on hand. Let's say the damages total $5,000. Under the concept of joint and several liability, a landlord can choose to sue all three of the tenants for the $5,000 or the landlord can choose to sue only two of them for the $5,000 (the two that are gainfully employed, for example) or the landlord could even opt to sue just one of the three roommates for the entire $5,000.

Assuming the landlord could prove his damages and meet his burden of proof, the court could rightfully enter a judgment of $5,000 against only Tenant A, if that is the only tenant that the landlord sued. This is true even if it was Tenant C that caused the actual damage. The landlord could then pursue and collect the entire $5,000 from Tenant A. It would then be up to Tenant A to sue either Tenant B or Tenant C, or both, if he so chooses.

Please note that joint and several liability does not allow a landlord to obtain a double or triple "windfall." A landlord can't sue each tenant individually for the full $5,000 and end up with three judgments totaling $15,000. This is why the most practical course of action is typically for the landlord to sue all three tenants for the entire $5,000 and then decide which tenant is more "collectible" (and often more responsible) and pursue the collection of the judgment against only that one tenant.

Now, let's assume there is no damage to the rental unit after the three tenants move out and therefore the entire security deposit will end up being returned. How is the landlord to return the security deposit? Under Wisconsin law, specifically Wisconsin Administrative Code, ATCP 134.06(2)(d), a landlord is required to refund the entire security deposit in one "check, draft or money order made payable to all tenants who are parties to the rental agreement unless the tenants designate a payee in writing." So under ATCP 134.06(2)(d), a landlord is required to treat the tenant roommates as one person - by sending them one check made payable to all three of them. If a landlord ended up writing three separate checks to each of the tenants for 1/3 of the security deposit each, that landlord would be violating Wisconsin law.

So, if a landlord treats his tenant roommate as one person, he will not only be adhering to the concept of joint and several liability, he will make his life as a landlord more simple. Landlords should not have to get involved in trying to determine which roommate did or didn't pay "his portion of the rent" nor should a landlord be concerned with which roommate punched a hole in the drywall during a drunken rampage. It is not our job as landlords to be social workers and resolve disputes amongst roommates. Nor is it our job to be the judge or jury and determine which roommate was at fault. Fortunately, the concept of joint and several liability allows a landlord the ability to avoid all of that unnecessary drama.

NOTE: If the rental agreement you are currently using does not indicate that all tenants are "jointly and severally liability" for all obligations under the rental agreement, then it is not a well-written rental agreement and is not worth the paper that it is written on. If that is the case, you should tear it up at the first possible legal opportunity -- i.e. once the term ends if it is a lease or with 28 day's notice if it is a month to month tenancy. You should then purchase and start using a rental agreement that states that all tenants are jointly and severally liable. I hear that the Rental Agreement sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Company, Inc. is a very good one -- someone told me that the author of it is pretty knowledgeable about Landlord-Tenant Law.

Avoid Homemade Rental Agreements . . . Regardless of What the Tenant Resource Center Tells You

I received a troubling call from a landlord last week. This landlord had some questions regarding management of her rental properties and told me that she had previosuly called the Landlord-Tenant Resource Center for assistance. I informed the caller that there is no such animal as the Landlord-Tenant Resource Center and that she had actually spoken with the Tenant Resource Center, a very pro-tenant organization.

The landlord continued to tell me that she has been using the Residential Rental Agreement sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co. Inc. for the last 10 years and has been very happy with it. She advised me that when she mentioned this fact to the person at the Tenant Resource Center that she was informed that she should stop using the WLB rental agreement immediately as it was vague and indefinite and would not stand up in court. She was then told that she should instead draft her own lease in the future.

As many of you know, I have been the author of Wisconsin Legal Blank’s residential rental agreement for the last 15 or so years, so this criticism was news to me. I explained that I have been representing landlords throughout Southeastern Wisconsin for years and during those hundreds of court appearances, I have never had a tenant or a tenant's attorney raise that argument. More importantly, I had never had a court make a ruling the the WLB rental agreement was vague or lost a case based on the alleged vagueness of the WLB rental agreement. I am also quite sure that if other lawyers or landlords had lost a case as a result of the wording of the WLB rental agreement, that either I or Wisconsin Legal Blank would have received an angry telephone call by now.

I proceeded to tell this landlord about the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin and that it was an organization comprised of landlords and for landlords and that she should consider calling it in the future should she have any questions about the management of her rental properties, and not the Tenant Resource Center. I also encouraged her to join the AASEW and believe that she is now a member.

What troubled me most about this call was not that someone was critical of the WLB rental agreement, but rather that the Tenant Resource Center advised this landlord that she would be better off drafting her own rental agreement in the future. Those of you that have heard me speak on the topic of rental documents before know that one of my biggest concerns is when a landlord drafts their own rental agreement. I would say that over 80% of the landlord-drafted rental agreements that I have reviewed over the years contain illegal clauses or provisions that would most likely render the rental agreement void in Wisconsin.

Inadvertently, landlords who draft their own rental agreements, often will include a provision that violates one of ATCP 134.08’s seven prohibited rental agreement provisions ("The Seven Deadly Sins"). The result of making such a mistake is that the landlord now has a rental agreement that is unenforceable against the tenant (but yet is still enforceable by the tenant against the landlord). One needs to look no further than the 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court case of Baierl v. McTaggart, 245 Wis.2d 632, 629 N.W.2d 277, to see the disastrous results of using a poorly drafted lease.

In actuality, a landlord is better served by using a pre-printed rental agreement that has been drafted by a lawyer knowledgeable in Wisconsin residential landlord tenant law -- and is reviewed regularly by that lawyer -- then they are by drafting their own rental agreement or cutting and pasting together a conglomeration of rental agreements found on the internet.

Incidentally, many of the so-called state specific rental agreements that can be purchased on the internet also contain illegal provisions that will render them unenforceable in Wisconsin. One of these online companies actually contacted me to draft a lease for them about 5 years ago, but when they balked at actually paying me for my work, I opted to not assist them. Apparently they found an attorney who was willing to work for free but who -- unfortunately for the unsuspecting landlords that purchase this company's online rental agreements -- did not know Wisconsin residential landlord-tenant law very well and included language that would violate ATCP 134.08. There are similar issues with the rental agreements sold at Office Depot and Office Max.

I have been mulling over the possible intent of the Tenant Resource Center employee that advised this landlord to draft her own rental agreements in the future. All I can come up with is that tenant advocates must be putting out this so-called “advice” hoping that uneducated landlords will follow it, thus increasing a tenant’s chance of prevailing in court due if the landlords' self-drafted rental agreement contains an illegal provisions thus making it unenforceable against the tenant.

Call me jaded, but I can't come up with any other reasonable motivation.