Beware of Clauses Requiring More than 28-Days’ Notice to Terminate Month-to-Month Tenancies

By Atty. Gary D. Koch

Clauses requiring tenants to provide 60-Day Notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy are popular – we see them a lot in rental agreements. Recently, though, we have seen the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection take issue with such clauses in rental agreements in month-to-month tenancies that require the tenant to give anything more than a 28-Day Notice to terminate the tenancy.

These DATCP challenges can end one of two ways: the landlord can fight the Department, or, more likely, the landlord concedes and removes the clause from its rental agreements, potentially paying a fine for the pleasure of doing so.

We have not yet had a client want to fight DATCP on this issue, but we believe that there may be statutory grounds to do so.

The DATCP’s argument is found in Wisconsin Administrative Code § 134.06(3)(a)(2), prohibiting withholding from the security deposit for any charges other than for “Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legallyresponsible, subject to s. 704.29, Stats.” (Emphasis added). The Department believes that any notice period more than 28 days is illegal.

Wisconsin Statute § 704.19 discusses what notices are necessary to terminate periodic tenancies, such as month-to-month tenancies. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 704.19(3), “At least 28 days’ notice must be given” to terminate a month-to-month tenancy (emphasis added). It seems pretty straightforward that “at least” does not mean “exactly”.

Elsewhere in the same statute, we find that a month-to-month tenancy can be terminated “only by giving to the other party written notice complying with this section, unless any of the following conditions is met: (1) [t]he parties have agreed expressly upon anther method of termination and the parties’ agreement is established by clear and convincing proof.” (Emphasis added). Again, it seems pretty straightforward that a clause in the lease calling for a 60-Day Notice to terminate the month-to-month tenancy would be clear and convincing proof that the parties have expressly agreed upon another method of termination.

Nevertheless, the Department takes the position that landlords can ONLY require a 28-Day Notice to terminate the tenant’s month-to-month tenancy.

Do these arguments win? That remains to be seen. It might be a serious undertaking to find out the answer, but Petrie + Pettit is certainly ready to take on that challenge with you!

Governor Walker Signed 2013 Wisconsin Act 76 (SB 179) Into Law Today

2013 Wisconsin Act 76 (SB 179) was signed into law today, December 12, 2013, by Governor Scott Walker in his office at the Capital building.

Many people attended the signing, including myself. It was the first law signing that I have ever attended and was very intersting. I was able to get a photograph with the Governor, had him sign a copy of his new book (a Christmas gift for my mother) and even received a pen that was used to sign a portion of the new law.

I learned after the signing that the pens that are handed out to the attendees at a law signing are each used to sign at least some part of the new law. So for example one pen is used by the Governor for his signature. Another pen is used to write the "D" in the date "December". Another pen is used to write the "e" in "December" and so on and so on. It was humorous watching him pick up each pen and write something then put it down and pick up another pen, write something, put in down . . . and so on and so on.

So Act 76 (I'm so used to calling it SB 179 that it will take some time to get used to the new name) was enacted today (Dec. 12, 2013) and will be published tomorrow (Dec. 13, 2013). The law will become effective on March 1, 2014, except for the section on towing which will become effective on July 1, 2014.

Congratulations to everyone that worked on this new law! Here is a link to Act 76.

T

Governor Walker To Sign Wisconsin's New Landlord-Tenant Law Next Week

I have recently learned that Governor Scott Walker will be signing Senate Bill 179 into law next week Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 8 AM in the Governor's Conference Room in Madison.

Senate Bill 179 will be signed along with a group of other bills starting at 8 AM that morning.

Those of us involved in the drafting of this bill are happy to see all of the hard work come to a close.

What most people want to know is if the Governor signs the bill into law on December 12th, when will the new law become effective?

All but one section of the new law will become effective as of March 1, 2014 (the 3rd month after enactment). The section dealing with the towing of vehicles (sec. 349. Wis. Stats.) will become effective as of July 1, 2014 (the 7th month after enactiment) as the Department of Transportation will need to draft several regulations to flesh out the new towing laws.

SB 179 ("Landlord-Tenant Bill") Is On It's Way To Governor Walker To Be Signed Into Law

At about 6:40 pm on October 16, 2013, SB 179 (commonly referred to as the Landlord-Tenant Bill) was concurred by the state Senate after a minor amendment was made in the state Assembly earlier. The bill passed 18-15 despite attempts to delay the bill via a motion to non-concur. The bill now goes to the Governor who has 30 days to "call" for the bill and sign it.

If you would like to watch the hearing you can do so by clicking here. The portion of the hearing dealing with SB 179 starts at approximately 2:58.

This bill which will hopefully become law -- absent a veto by the Governor -- will makes some major changes to Wisconsin Landlord Tenant law and the small claims eviction procedure. It also cleans up several of the unintended consequences of Act 143, which also dealt with landlord-tenant law, which became law back on March 31, 2012.

I will be devoting a segment of the AASEW's upcoming Landlord Boot Camp on October 26, 2013, to discussing SB 179 and its effect on the landlord-tenant landscape. For more information on the upcoming Boot Camp, including a summary of other topics that will be covered, prior attendees' testimonials, and how to register to attend, please go to www.LandlordBootCamp2013.com.

Assuming the Governor signs SB 179 into law, I will most likley be posting on this topic again in the near future and offerring my own analysis of the law, but for now I have reproduced for the Wisconsin Legislative Council's October 14, 2013 memo which summarizes current law in Wisconsin and then summarizes how SB 179 will affect/change current law.

This memorandum describes Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 2013 Senate Bill 179, as amended by Senate Amendments 17 and 18, relating to landlord-tenant law, small claims actions, and towing of vehicles. In addition, this Memo describes Assembly Amendment 1 to 2013 Senate Bill 179, as passed by the Senate. The section numbers in brackets refer to the sections of Senate Bill 179 that are described under each heading, below.

RESTRICTIONS ON LOCAL ORDINANCES [Sections 1-4]

Under current law, a city, village, town, or county (municipality) is prohibited from enacting or enforcing certain ordinances relating to landlords and tenants, such as an ordinance imposing a moratorium on eviction actions or an ordinance that places certain limitations on what information a landlord may obtain and use concerning a prospective tenant. [ss. 66.0104 and 66.1010, Stats.]

Senate Bill 179 additionally prohibits a municipality from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that does any of the following:

• Limits a tenant’s responsibility, or a landlord’s right to recover, for any damage or waste to, or neglect of, the premises that occurs during the tenant’s occupancy of the premises.
• Limits a tenant’s responsibility or a landlord’s right to recover for any other costs, expenses, fees, payments, or damages for which the tenant is responsible under the rental agreement or applicable law.
• Requires a landlord to communicate to tenants any information that is not required to be communicated to tenants under federal or state law.
• Requires a landlord to communicate to the municipality any information concerning the landlord unless the information is required under federal or state law or is required of all residential real property owners.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 authorizes a municipality to enact or enforce an ordinance that requires a landlord to communicate to the municipality any information concerning the landlord ifthe information is solely information that will enable a person to contact the owner or, at the option of the owner, an agent of the owner.

Senate Amendment 17 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 authorizes a municipality to enact or create an ordinance that requires a landlord to communicate information to tenants that is not required to be communicated to tenants under federal or state law if the ordinance has a reasonable and clearly defined objective of regulating the manufacture of illegal narcotics.

Assembly Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 179, as passed by the Senate (i.e., as amended by Senate Substitute Amendment 1 and Senate Amendments 17 and 18) modifies the provision described above that generally prohibits a municipality from enacting or enforcing an ordinance requiring a landlord to communicate to the municipality any information concerning the landlord, unless an exception applies. Assembly Amendment 1 provides that the general prohibition relates to communication to the municipality of any information concerning the landlord or a tenant, unless an exception applies.

NOTIFICATION TO A PROSPECTIVE TENANT OF BUILDING CODE OR HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS [Section 11]

Under current law, if a landlord has actual knowledgeof any uncorrected building code or housing code violation in the dwelling unit or a common area that presents a significant threat to the prospective tenant’s health or safety, the landlord must disclose the violation to a prospective tenant before entering into a rental agreement or accepting any earnest money or security deposit. [s. 704.07 (2) (bm), Stats.]

Under Senate Bill 179, the landlord must disclose the types of violations described above only if he or she has received written notice of the violation from a local housing code enforcement agency.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 deletes this provision from the bill.

COMMISSION OF CRIMES ON RENTAL PROPERTY [Section 18]

Under current law, if a lease contains any of a list of prohibited provisions, the lease is void and unenforceable. Among the prohibited provisions is 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. [s. 704.44 (9), Stats.]

Senate Bill 179 repeals the provision of current law describe above.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 replaces the current law provision described above with a provision that states that the lease is void and unenforceable if it contains a provision that allows the landlord to terminate a 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 the victim of that crime. Victim is defined by reference to s. 950.02 (4), which generally provides that “victim” means a person against whom a crime has been committed, unless he or she is the person charged with or alleged to have committed the crime.

In addition, the substitute amendment requires a lease to include a specified notice, in the lease agreement or an addendum to the lease agreement, of certain domestic abuse protections available under ss. 106.50 (5m) (dm) and 704.16, Stats. The first of these sections prohibits a landlord from evicting a tenant because of the tenant’s status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. The second of these sections provides that a residential tenant may terminate his or her tenancy if the tenant or a child of the tenant faces an imminent threat of serious physical harm from another person if the tenant remains on the premises.

The substitute amendment also provides that a lease is void and unenforceable if it allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant for criminal activity in relation to the property and the lease does not include the notice regarding domestic abuse protections described above.

Senate Amendment 18 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 modifies the language required under the notice of domestic abuse protections. Under Senate Amendment 18, the notice provides that a tenant has a defense to an eviction action under the circumstances provided in s. 106.50 (5m) (dm), Stats., instead of providing that a tenant may be able to stop an eviction action under such circumstances.

TERMINATION OF TENANCY IN MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES FOR THREAT OF SERIOUS HARM [No provision in Bill]

Under current law, a landlord may terminate the tenancy of a tenant if the tenant commits one or more acts, including verbal threats, that cause another tenant, or a child of that other tenant, who occupies a dwelling unit in the same single-family rental unit, multi-unit dwelling, or apartment complex as the offending tenant, to face an imminent threat of serious physical harm from the offending tenant if the offending tenant remains on the premises. [s. 704.16 (3), Stats.]

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 authorizes a landlord to terminate the tenancy of the tenant of a mobile or manufactured home community who threatens another tenant, or child of another tenant, of the mobile or manufactured home community under the same circumstances, described above.

TIMING OF RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT [Section 15 and 16]

Under current law, if a tenant is evicted, a landlord must return the security deposit to the tenant, less any amounts that are appropriately withheld, within 21 days after the date on which the writ of restitution is executed or the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises, whichever occurs first. [s. 704.28 (4) (d), Stats.]

Under Senate Bill 179, if a tenant is evicted, the landlord must return the security deposit to the tenant within 21 days after 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.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 provides that the timing of the return of the security deposit depends on whether the tenant is evicted before or after the termination date of the lease. If the tenant is evicted before that date, the landlord must return the security deposit within 21 days after the lease terminates or, if the landlord re-rents the premises before that day, the date on which the new tenant’s tenancy begins. If the tenant is evicted after the termination date, the landlord must return the security deposit within 21 days after the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises or the date the tenant is removed by eviction.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN EVICTION ACTION [Section 22]

Under current law, under most circumstances, the summons in an eviction action must be personally served upon the defendant (the tenant), unless this cannot be achieved with “reasonable diligence.” In this case, the summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons at the defendant’s usual place of abode in the presence of either: (1) a competent member of the family who is at least 14 years old; or (2) a competent adult who resides in the abode of the defendant. The person serving the summons must inform the family member or other person of the contents of the summons. [s. 801.11 (1) (b), Stats.]

Under Senate Bill 179, a court may, by rule, authorize the summons in an eviction to be served by regular mail.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 provides that use of certified mail shall be required for all eviction cases for which service by mail is authorized by a court.

TIMING OF APPEARANCE AND TRIAL IN EVICTION ACTIONS [Sections 20, 23 and 24]

Under current law, the summons in an eviction action specifies the date that the defendant must appear in court. That appearance date must be set at not less than five days or more than 30 days after the summons is issued. [s. 799.05 (3) (b), Stats.] Also, the court generally sets the matter for a trial or hearing when the tenant makes the initial appearance. Current law does not specify the required timing of the trial or hearing. [s. 799.20 (4) and 799.206 (3), Stats.]

Senate Bill 179 changes the appearance date to not less than five days or more than 14 days after the summons is issued. The bill also specifies that the trial or hearing must be scheduled within 20 days after the date of appearance.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 changes the appearance date to not less than five days or more than 25 days after the summons is issued. The substitute amendment also specifies that a trial or hearing on the issue of possession of the premises involved in the action must be held and completed within 30 days after the date of appearance, and provides that this provision applies only to residential tenancies.

WHO MAY APPEAR IN SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS [Section 21]

Under current law, in any small claims action, a person may commence and prosecute or defend an action or proceeding himself or herself, or by an attorney or a full-time authorized employee of the person. [s. 799.06 (2), Stats.]

Senate Bill 179 eliminates the requirement that the employee be a full-time employee and also allows any small claims action by a member of the person, an agent of the member or an authorized employee of the agent. This provision applies to all small claims actions, not only evictions.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 clarifies that “member”means a member as defined in s. 183.0102 (15), Stats.:

“Member” means a person who has been admitted to membership in a limited liability company as provided in s. 183.0801 and who has not dissociated from the limited liability company.

DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LEFT ON RENTAL PREMISES AFTER EVICTION [Sections 9, 10 and 29-46]

Under current law, if a tenant leaves property of value on the rental premises after he or she has been evicted, the property must be removed and stored. The evicted tenant is notified of the location of the property and provided with the receipt needed to obtain possession of the property. The evicted tenant is responsible for the costs of storage. In Milwaukee County, the sheriff must remove and store the property. In all other counties, the landlord may choose to be responsible for the removal and storage of the property. If the landlord does not choose to remove and store the property, the sheriff must do so. [s. 799.45 (3), Stats.]

Under Senate Bill 179, if a tenant is evicted and leaves property on the rental premises, the landlord is not required to store the property unless the landlord and tenant have entered into a written agreement which provides otherwise. If the landlord does not intend to store personal property left behind by a tenant, the landlord must provide written notice either when the tenant enters into or renews the rental agreement, or at any other time before the tenant is evicted from the premises. If this notice is provided, the landlord may dispose of the property, other than prescription medicine or medical equipment, in any manner that the landlord determines is appropriate.

Senate Substitute Amendment 1 deletes the bill provision that authorizes a landlord to provide the notice described “at any time before the tenant is evicted,” and provides that any notice that is provided must be provided either when the tenant enters into or renews the rental agreement.

TOWING OF VEHICLES [Sections 5-8]

Under current law, a vehicle that is parked on a private parking lot or facility without the permission of the property owner may not be removed without the permission of the vehicle owner, unless a traffic or police officer issues a citation for illegal parking, or a repossession judgment is issued. If the vehicle is taken by a towing service to any location other than a public highway within one mile from the location in which the vehicle was improperly parked, the municipality or the traffic or police officer must, within 24 hours, provide the towing service with the name and last-known address of the registered owner and all lienholders of record. [s. 349.19 (3m) and (5) (c), Stats.]

Under Senate Bill 179, a vehicle that is parked without authorization on private property that is properly posted may be towed immediately regardless of whether a parking citation is issued. “Properly posted” means there is clearly visible notice that an area is private property and that vehicles that are not authorized to park in this area may be immediately removed. The vehicle may be removed by a towing service at the request of the property owner or property owner’s agent, a traffic officer, or a parking enforcer. A parking enforcer is a person who enforces nonmoving traffic violations and who is employed by a municipality, a county, or the state. Also, the bill requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to promulgate rules establishing reasonable charges for removal and storage of vehicles under the provisions described above.

Under Senate Substitute Amendment 1, if a property owner has a vehicle towed under the provisions described above, the towing service must notify a local law enforcement agency of the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle and the location to which the vehicle will be towed. The law enforcement agency is required to maintain a record of the notice as well as the identification of the towing service. Also, the substitute amendment prohibits a towing service from removing a vehicle that has been reported to a law enforcement agency as stolen.

In addition, under the substitute amendment, if requested by the municipality in which the vehicle was illegally parked, the towing service must charge the vehicle owner a service fee not to exceed $35. The towing service must then remit the service fee to the municipality according to procedures specified in the statute.

The substitute amendment provides that the rules promulgated by DOT must establish the form, and manner of display, of the notice necessary to qualify as “properly posted” under the provisions described above, as well as guidelines for towing services to notify law enforcement of the removal of a vehicle.

Attorney General States That A Tenant Can Be Required To Pay For Carpet Cleaning Upon Vacating

It is not often that I get to report good news for landlords, so when the opportunity arises I am especially happy to do so. Today is one of those times. Earlier today the Wisconsin Attorney General issued a formal legal opinion that states that it is legal for a residential landlord in Wisconsin to require an outgoing tenant to pay to have the carpet in the unit professionally cleaned and to include such a provision in the rental agreement.

It is well known that in Wisconsin a residential landlord cannot withhold the costs of having the carpet professionally cleaned from a tenant's security deposit. Wisconsin Administrative Code, ATCP 134.06(3)(c) states that landlords are prohibited from withholding from a security deposits for "normal wear and tear." The Note to this administrative code provision states that carpet cleaning is an example of an impermissible basis for withholding a tenant's security deposit.

What had been unclear until now, is whether or not a landlord could make a tenant pay for the cost to have the carpet professionally cleaned upon vacating and to include such a provision in the rental agreement. I have personally experienced both courts that held that a landlord could charge a tenant for professional carpet cleaning and others that would not. Additionally, some judges and court commissioners felt that including a provision in a residential rental agreement requiring a tenant to pay to have the carpeting professionally cleaned upon vacating renders the rental agreement void.

Wisconsin landlords are now on solid ground in knowing that they can require a tenant to pay to have the carpets professionally cleaned upon vacating and that they can include such a provision in their rental agreement.

The key questions and answers from the formal opinion are set forth below:

QUESTION 1: Based on current law, does routine carpet cleaning at the end of a tenancy fall within the landlord's duty to keep the premises "in a reasonable state of repair" as prescribed by Wis. Stats. sec. 704.07(2)?

ANSWER: No, a landlord's duty to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair does not encompass routine carpet cleaning.

QUESTION 2: Would a provision requiring the tenant to pay for professional carpet cleaning, in the absence of negligence or improper use by the tenant, render a rental agreement void under Wis. Stats. sec. 704.44(8)?

ANSWER: No, because routine carpet cleaning is not a statutorily-imposed obligation of a landlord, assigning this responsibility to a tenant through a contractual provision does not render a rental agreement void.

In its analysis, the Attorney General states that the key issue upon which the answer hinged was whether or not routine carpet cleaning falls under one of the statutorily prescribed obligations of a landlord. If it does, then the law clearly would prevent a landlord from assigning that obligation to a tenant. If not, then a landlord could legally assign the obligation to have the carpets professionally cleaned to a tenant.

Under Wisconsin law a landlord is statutorily required to keep a rental unit in a "reasonable state of repair" and such repairs cannot be assigned to a tenant as a result. Routine carpet cleaning however is not considered to be a "repair" as a repair typically involves fixing something that is broken. A carpet that is dirty and needs to be cleaned is not in need of "repair."

The AG's analysis then points out that the landlord-tenant statutes do not assign cleaning responsibilities to either the landlord or the tenant. As such, the parties are free to assign the responsibilities for cleaning in the rental agreement. Which therefore means that a landlord can require a tenant to pay to have the carpets cleaned if it is in the rental agreement.

Please note however, that while the Attorney General's legal opinion does allow a landlord to charge a tenant for the costs of having the carpets professionally cleaned, it still does NOT allow a landlord to deduct those costs from the tenant's security deposit (even if you put such a clause in your Nonstandard Rental Provisions). So if the tenant doesn't pay for the carpet cleaning as agreed to in the rental agreement a landlord's only recourse will be to sue the ex-tenant for the costs.

So Let's Talk About . . . Companion/Comfort Animals In Rental Properties

I have been promising that I would blog about this topic for months (could it possibly be over a year even) and the time has finally come. So let's talk about companion/comfort animals in rental properties.

Background:

I will use the terms comfort animals and companion animals interchangeably throughout this post.

So we are all on the “same page" a companion animal is an animal that is NOT specifically trained or certified but rather provides a tenant with a disability with emotional support. Specifically trained and certified animals that assist people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this post.

Wisconsin does not have a specific statute related to comfort animals. Many people improperly think that sec. 106.50(2r)(4)(bm), Wis. Stats. entitled “Animals Assisting People with Disabilities" applies to companion animals. It does not. That section deals only with specially trained and certified animals that help people with mobility, vision or hearing impairments. Comfort animals are not specially trained and/or certified and they do assist people with disabilities afecting more than just mobility, hearing and vision.

So what is the applicable Wisconsin law dealing with companion animals or comfort animals if they do not fall under this provision? Comfort animals are dealt with under a much more broad section of fair housing law dealing with "reasonable accommodations" which can be found at sec. 106.50(2r)(4), Wis. Stats.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a request made by a tenant for a change in a landlord's rules, policies, practices or services that are associated with housing when such accommodation is necessary to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

For example, a request by a tenant to keep a companion animal is a request for a reasonable accommodation to a landlord's "no pet" policy.

The Law:

It is considered to be discriminatory to refuse to allow a tenant's request to keep a comfort animal if they meet the following requirements:

1. The tenant meets the definition of having a disability under Wisconsin or federal law ("an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person regarded as having such an impairment, or a person with a record of such an impairment").

2. The accommodation must be necessary to afford the disabled tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental property.

3. There must be an identifiable relationship (or nexus) between the tenant's disability and the request.

So in the case of a request for a companion animal, the tenant must demonstrate a nexus between their disability and the function or service that the companion animal provides.

A landlord may request reliable disability-related information from a tenant that is necessary to: (1) verify that the tenant meets the definition of having a disability, (2) describes the needed accommodation, and (3) shows the relationship between the two. If the disability is open and obvious then the landlord should not request verification of the disability from the tenant.

The tenant's specific disability need not even be disclosed - just the fact that the tenant has a disability is sufficient.

A tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation may be oral or in writing and the actual term "reasonable accommodation" need not be used. The request can even be made by someone on the tenant's behalf.

Practical Effects:

In case you are wondering, the threshold that a tenant must meet in order to be able to keep a comfort animal is very low.

It is not even required that the tenant's doctor confirm that the tenant has a disability. HUD and DOJ's Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under The Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) states that a doctor or “other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the tenant's disability" may provide the verification of the tenant's disability.

As mentioned previously, a tenant's comfort animal need not be specially trained or certified. A comfort/companion animal can be any type of animal that the tenant wants. It could be the dog or cat (or mouse, rat, lizard, fish, . . . ) that the tenant owned prior to becoming disabled. It could be the stray dog that the tenant found walking down the alley last week. It could be a cat that the tenant's mother no longer wants in her house. It could be the rat that the tenant bought at the local pet shop.

I have read articles, case law, and been involved in cases in which all kinds of animals have been requested to serve as a tenant's companion animals . . . a miniature horses (because it would live longer than a dog and the tenant's mental health disability would be exacerbated by the death of another dog that wouldn't not outlive her), 5 cats (each one allegedly assisted the person with a different aspect of their disability), snakes (tenant was allergic to dander), and pit bulls (why . . . . just because). There is no limit on the type/breed, size, or age of a companion animal.

So if the tenant wants a Bull Mastiff as their companion animal even though they live in an efficiency apartment and a much smaller dog could serve the same purpose, they can do that.

A landlord can deny a tenant's request for a companion animal if it:

1. Poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others unless the threat can be eliminated or greatly reduced.

2. Results in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or greatly reduced.

3. Poses an undue financial burden and administrative burden.

4. Fundamentally alters the nature of the housing provider's operations.

For example, a landlord could exclude a tenant's comfort animal if that animal's behavior poses a direct threat because it attacked another tenant.

In order to make a decision to deny a tenant's reasonable accommodation request to keep an animal that poses a direct threat to others safety, you will be required to go through a very fact intensive analysis. You cannot just refuse the tenant's pit bull comfort animal just because you might believe that all pit bulls are inherently dangerous. There must be a direct threat not just a speculative risk. Even if the animal was once dangerous, if the tenant takes the animal to obedience training, administers medication, or purchases the animal equipment (like a muzzle) which causes the animal to no longer be dangerous, then it may no longer be reasonable to exclude the animal.

I have worked with many landlords and management companies in analyzing whether a tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation to keep a companion animal should be granted. Without a doubt the single most difficult concept for my clients to accept is that a comfort animal IS NOT A PET.

I find it easier for landlords to understand this concept if they think of the comfort animal as an assistive device such as a wheelchair, crutches, or pain medication. By thinking this way, many landlords will be better able to keep themselves out of trouble. Let me explain provide an example.

One of my clients generally understood that he had to allow his tenant to keep a comfort animal but he was wondering if he could at the very least require the tenant (and the companion animal) to live in the one building in his apartment complex that allowed pets. It was a very innocent question and one that I sure many landlords might have themselves.

The answer is a resounding “NO." Why is that?

Remember, a companion animal is not a pet. Again, think of the companion animal as an assistive device such as a wheelchair. Would it be acceptable to require all tenants that use wheelchairs to live in one building together? Would it be OK to require all tenants that are prescribed antidepressant medication to live on the same floor? Of course not. Well the same goes with the tenant with the companion animal.

Since comfort animals are not pets a landlord is also not allowed to make the tenant that has one enter into a Pet Agreement or pay a monthly pet fee or even a pet deposit.

Having said that, a tenant that has a companion animal is still responsible for the animal's behavior and any damage that it may cause. For example, the tenant must still pick up after the companion animal. The tenant must still keep the comfort animal on a leash and prevent it from jumping on or harming others. The tenant must still prevent the comfort animal from making excessive noise or damaging the rental property.

If a tenant does not take responsibility for the actions of their companion animal a landlord has every right to serve that tenant with the appropriate notice to correct breach or vacate and evict if them if needed. Since comfort animals are not specially trained or certified poor behavior is often an issue. I have had to evict several tenants with companion animals as a result of their poor behavior. In one case the companion animal which happened to be a dog repeatedly escapeed from the rental unit and ran free in the common areas of the building. Another case the animal (a dog again) bit another tenant. Another, involved a dog that crapped all over the lawn and the tenant refised to pick up after it.

Conclusion:

The popularity of comfort/companion animals is not waning. I expect that landlords and management companies will be getting more and more requests as more people are being diagnosed and treated for mental health issues for which a companion animal may prove helpful. Not to mention that many war veterans are returning with PTSD, depression, and/or anxiety, for which comfort animals are being prescribed. And there will always be those tenants that just want to have a pet without having to pay a pet fee or move to a rental unit that allows pets, so they buy a pet, play the system, and “disguise" their pet as a comfort animal.

If you have not already dealt with a request by a tenant for a reasonable accommodation to your “no pet" or “limited pet" policy, I am certain that you soon will. As such, it is very important that you educate yourself on the applicable laws so that you can properly handle such a request from a tenant and not run afoul of federal or state laws.

If you would like to learn more about comfort animals, reasonable accomodations, and fair housing (discrimination) law considering attending the AASEW's upcoming LANDLORD BOOT CAMP on February 23rd, 2013.

04-30-13 UPDATE: HUD has issued a Notice on Assistance Animals and Reasonable Accomodations For Persons with Disabilities. See my post on this.

New Landlord Omnibus Law: Odds and Ends

There has been a lot of discussion about the new Landlord Tenant law in Wisconisn (2011 Wisconsin Act 143) since it became law on March 31, 2012. Some people's views seem similar to mine while others have interpreted the law completely differently than I do. Here is a link to one law firm's summary that in my opinion is completely off base, but then again they are Minnesota lawyers so we may have to give them a pass : ). But really guys, the new law did not create a new right for landlord's do deduct from a tenant's security deposit -- have you ever heard of ATCP 134.

I guess only time will tell how the law in interpreted by the courts in Wisconsin. One thing that I know for sure is that the politicians in Madison will be unable to correct any errors, or clarify and vagueness, in the new law until 2013 when they are back in session. So we are stuck with this for awhile and must make do.

The AASEW will be devoting it's June membership meeting (June 18, 2012 at 7 pm) to the new law and we hope to invite both landlord advocates and tenant advocates alike to present so that all sides can be presented. You will not want to miss this meeting. Come learn what the new law is and what you need to do in order to be in compliance. There will be no charge to AASEW members but we will be charging $25 for non-members to attend.

While I personally do not have anything new to add on the new law that I haven't said already in prior posts, I thought I would provide links to several items relevant to the new law that people might find interesting and useful.

Here is a copy of the newly enacted law - Act 143

Here is an overview of the new law by the Wisconsin Legislative Council

Here is a copy of the newly revised Chapter 704 (Landlord and Tenant) of the Wisconsin Stattutes which includes all of the changes/additions -- so I no longer have to carry around Act 143 : )

Here is an article that I recently wrote on the new law for the Wisconsin State Bar's Inside Track blog which includes several interesting comments on the new law by local lawyers.

Here's a blog article by my friend Tim Ballering about how the new law affects those landlords who are currently using a crime free lease addendum or something similar.

Thanks for reading

T

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 : )

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!

New Bills Would Limit Tenant's Attorney's Fees When Suing Landlords

There are two new proposed laws that if passed would limit the amount of attorney’s fees that could be awarded to a tenant that has sued his/her landlord for violation of ATCP 134 to 3 times the amount of compensatory damages in Wisconsin. The proposed legislation (Special Session Assembly Bill 12 & Special Session Senate Bill 12) was introduced by the committee on Senate Organization and the Committee on Assembly Organization at the request of Governor Scott Walker, Senator Rich Zipperer (R) and

Representative Robin Voss (R).

Currently if a tenant sues his landlord for a violation of ATCP 134 – which typically is due to the landlord’s alleged improper withholding of the tenant’s security deposit – and prevails, the court must award the tenant double damages, the costs of the lawsuit, and the tenant’s reasonable attorney’s fees. In almost every instance, the tenant’s reasonable attorney’s fees are much larger than the compensatory damages awarded.

In the United States we follow what is referred to as the American Rule which states that a person pays for their own attorney’s fees regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. This is very different from the English Rule, which is followed in England, which requires the losing party to pay for the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees in addition to their own.

Despite following the American Rule in the United States, there are certain situations in which a state or federal statute will allow for the shifting of one’s attorney’s fees to th other party. These statutes are referred to as fee shifting statutes. Sec. 100.20(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes is an example of a specific type of fee shifting statute, called the private Attorney General statute, which requires that a landlord that has been found to have violated ATCP 134, to pay his tenant two times the tenant’s compensatory damages and the tenant’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

It is argued that the private Attorney General statute, which is codified as sec. 100.20 (5), Wis. Stats., has many purposes, such as: (1) it encourages a tenant that is damaged financially by the acts of their landlord to file a lawsuit to enforce their rights even if the alleged damages are small, (2) it allows a tenant to enforce his own rights as well a well as the public’s rights, (3) it deters improper conduct by landlords, (4) it strengthen the bargaining power of a tenant, and (5) it provides a much needed backup for th State as there are too many violations for the Attorney General’s Office to enforce alone.

These new bills would limit a tenant’s attorney’s fees to 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded in all cases in which only compensatory damages are awarded. If non-monetary relief is awarded in addition to compensatory damages (such as injunctive or declaratory relief, rescission or modification, or specific performance the court must “presume” that reasonable attorney’s fees do not exceed 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded, however that presumption may b overcome after the court analyzes 13 factors which the bills will allow a court to consider when setting the amount of attorney’s fees.

Critics of the two new bills feel that if passed, they will essentially “gut” Wisconsin’s consumer protection laws. Their argument is that no attorney will be able to afford to tak a tenant’s smaller damage case due to the limitations of their fees. As a result, it is argued that tenants will no longer be able to challenge the improper behavior of the landlords and therefore” bad” landlords will be able to do whatever they want and get away with it.

UPDATE - 10-28-11 -- On Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011 the aforementioned bill was passed by the Senate 17-15 (on a party line vote). The bill was softened a bit to allow for atty. fees greater than 3 times damages to be awarded by a judge BUT the presumption would still be that three times damages is sufficient.

Update on Landlord Pre-Emption Bill

It has been awhile since I updated everyone on the pro-landlord legislation that is being addressed in Madison. Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) -- referred to as the Landlord Pre-Emption Bill -- has been passed by the Wisconsin Senate and is currently being reviewed by the House this term (AB 155).

You may recall that SB 107 prohibits any municipality from enacting any ordinance that limits a landlord from obtaining or using various types of information about a tenant or prospective tenant, such as household income, occupation, court records, rental history, and credit information, or limits how far back in time a prospective tenant's

credit information, conviction record, or previous housing may be considered.

The bill has received much opposition from local municipalities and their lobbyists, not for the substance of the bill, but rather for the fact that if passed, the law will

restrict a municipality’s ability to draft certain ordinances. Essentially the municipalities feel this to be a breach of their own sovereignty and an example of the state overstepping its bounds. Many feel that this is really just a Madison problem -- since it is the City of Madison that has enacted many of these restrictions on what information a landlord can consider when making a rental decision – and therefore should be dealt with at the city level.

Another group of critics believe that the bill discriminates against African-Americans. Four Dane County Board Supervisors, two Madison City Council members and one Madison School Board member, sent a letter to Governor Walker and legislators on September 7, 2011, asking that the provision of the bill that will allow landlords to deny housing to tenants with criminal histories be removed because is discriminates against African Americans.

They argue that allowing a landlord to deny a rental applicant housing based on his/her criminal convictions will unfairly affect African-Americans because while they

only comprise 6% of the state’s population they account for almost 50% of those with arrest and conviction records. Thus the critics of the bill argue that to allow a landlord to deny a rental applicant based on his/her criminal record is to allow landlords to deny housing based on race.

The critics are relying on the doctrine of "disparate impact." The disparate impact doctrine holds that certain laws may be discriminatory and illegal – even if the law is neutral on its face -- if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group.

This disparate impact argument is ignoring a key ingredient – one’s choice to engage in criminal activity. One’s race is not something that a person has control over – we are born into a certain race. On the other hand, individuals do have control over whether or not they engage in criminal activity. Committing a crime is a volitional act. Being born African-American is not. We are dealing with apples and oranges here.

Disparate impact arguments are often raised when a law unintentionally affects a minority group through no fault of their own. This small group of critics, are trying to apply the disparate impact doctrine to individuals that made a voluntary decision to engage in criminal activity.

UPDATE - 10-28-11 -- On Wed. Octo 26, 2011, By a vote of 59-34 the Assembly voted to suspend a rulling on AB155. An amendment was made by Rep Chris Taylor (D-Madison) that would protect some local control within the bill - the amendment was tabled by a vote of 60-33.

Three Wisconsin Landlords Charged with Violating Fair Housing Laws

Three Wisconsin landlords have recently been charged with violating Fair Housing laws by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

First, in late July, HUD announced that it charged a husband and wife who own a rental property in Brown County with violating the Fair Housing Act for allegedly creating

different rental requirements for a single mother and her son. The charge also alleges that the landlords’ lease agreement includes policies and rules restricting families with children.

Specifically, HUD’s complaint alleges that shortly after accepting a single mother’s rental application, the landlords added a new requirement that the single mother

promise to be present at home whenever her 17 year old son had visitors. The mother was unwilling to agree to this requirement and as a result the landlords refused to rent to her and her son. The landlord’s ended up renting the property to a family with no children. Additionally, it is alleged that the landlords' lease agreement included clauses that are unduly burdensome on families with children, including a provision that says "no children are allowed to play in common areas of the building" and imposes

a $100 fine and eviction for violating said policy.

Second, on September 9, 2011, HUD charged a West Salem female landlord for violating Fair Housing laws by refusing to rent to a single mother because she did not have a man "to shovel the snow" for her. The landlord eventually rented the property to two men.

The rental property at issue is a home on a cattle farm and is located in a hollow. The landlord told the investigators that the winters there are "brutal" and a single mother could not handle the seclusion and the snow removal. The landlord went on to comment that it was "just common sense" to deny the applicant and then asked the investigator if he would allow his daughter to live alone with a child, a mile and a half from neighbors. Further inserting her foot into her mouth, the

landlord told the investigator, "[i]f she thinks I discriminated against her, I absolutely did." The landlord continued to make matters worse by telling housing authorities that

she "never rents to single mothers, especially in the country," and had no plans to change. She added that "single mothers are part of the country's financial problems" today.

This case should be a "slam dunk" for HUD. The landlord would've greatly benefited from the assistance of counsel – although based on her comments she probably would not have listened to an attorney’s advice. Anyone care to wager on the outcome of this? I am expecting a rather large fine to be imposed.

UPDATE 10-31-11 -- This ended up being a $15,000 mistake for the West Salem Landlord - who ended up settling the claim.

Third, on September 26, 2011, HUD announced that it charged a La Crosse landlord and property manager with violating anti-discrimination laws for refusing to rent to an

African-American couple because of their race. It is alleged that the owner and property manager refused to show available apartments to the black couple. Additionally, they told the couple and other black applicants, that no rental units were available, while just minutes later they told white applicants of the available rental units and encouraged them to apply. This behavior allegedly occurred over a period of 2 months. Both black and white "testers" were sent to the property and confirmed that the black

testers were told no rental units were available while the white testers were told of open units and encouraged to apply.

Every day I hear of more and more landlords and property managers being charged with violating both federal and state Fair Housing laws. I wish that more landlords would take the time to educate themselves on these laws. Read some of my earlier posts on Fair Housing issues here, here and here.

Landlords Should Periodically Inspect Their Rental Property . . . or Risk $98,465 In Damage

Last night I read an article about a Virginia landlord that had $98,465 in damage to one of his rental units. Apparently his tenant was a compulsive hoarder and every room in the home was full from floor to ceiling with trash, soiled clothing, old newspaper, rotten food, and other deberis and excrement. It cost the landlord over $98,000 to get the unit back into rentable condition. The landlord's insurance company refused to pay for the damages claiming that damage from compulsive hoarding was not covered under the dwelling policy.

After finishing the article I thought to myself that the landlord really was partly to blame for allowing the situation to get so out of control. The landlord should have conducted periodic inspections of the interior of his rental property. If he had done so, most likely, the landlord would have noticed the accumulation of "stuff" months or even years earlier and could have addressed the issue with the tenant before too much damage occurred.

It is good practice for landlords to periodically inspect the interior of their rental units and Wisconsin law allows for these periodic inspections as long as certain requirements are followed.

Background:

The covenant of quiet use and enjoyment is implied in all rental agreements. This covenent simply means that the landlord guarantees that the tenant may take possession of the rental unit and that the tenant has the right to privacy and exclusive use of and possession of the property and that the landlord will not interfere with that.

The Law:

In Wisconsin there are limited exceptions to the covenant of quiet use and enjoyment. One of those exceptions is a landlord's limited right of entry to a tenant's rental unit. Specifically, Wisconsin Administrative Code, ATCP 134.09 (2) and sec. 704.05(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes allows a landlord the ability to enter a tenant's rental unit for the following:

1. To inspect the premises

2. To make repairs

3. To show the property to a prospective tenant or purchasor

ATCP 134.09(2)(c) allows a landlord to enter a tenant's rental under circumstances other than the three listed above, as long as those circumstances are set forth in a Nonstandard Rental Provisions document (which must be a separate document from the Rental Agreement) that is signed and/or initialed by the tenant. So if a landlord always conducts inspections of his/her rental units on the first day of spring and fall, or some other date certain that is known in advance, it might be a good idea to list that information in the NSRP.

Wisconsin also requires other conditions to be met prior to allowing a landlord to enter a tenant's rental unit. Those requirements include:

- The giving of advance notice to the tenant (in most situations)

ATCP 134.09(2) requires at least 12 hours advance notice, however some municipalities -- such as Madison -- have longer notice requirements, so you will need to check the municipal code where your rental is located.

I reccomend that my clients give this notice in writing to the tenant and slip it under the door of the rental unit (or if time permits mail it to them). A landlord should keep a copy of this notice for his/her own files in case a dispute should arise as to whether or not the notice was given. Wisconsin Legal Blank Company, Inc. has a pre-printed form that they sell entitled "12 Hour Notice" that I drafted for this type of situation.

- Entry must be at reasonable times

I hope it goes without saying that 2 a.m. in the morning is not a "reasonable" time to enter your tenat's apartment. While "reasonable times" is not defined in case law, statutes or administrative provisions, it would be safe to say that entry during normal business hours would most likely be acceptable.

- The landlord may not remain in the unit beyond the reasonable amount of time that it takes to inspect the unit, make repairs, or show the unit to a prospective renter or purchasor.

The purpose of entry should be for a specific reason. Get in. Do what you need to do. Get out.

- A Landlord must announce his or her presence to any person who may be present in the unit and identify himself/herself.

I usually reccomend ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door several times before entering and then announcing loudly that it is "the landlord" and that "I'm here to conduct my bi-annual inspection" or "I'm here to repair your refrigerator" or whatever the reason for my entry might be. The last thing a landlord wants to do is open the door to his/her tenant's apartment and find a half-clothed tenant laying on the couch.

The need for providing advance notice and entering at a reasonable time may be disregarded, according to Wisconsin law, if one of the following applies:

1. A tenant who is aware of the planned time that the landlord intends to enter the unit, requests or consents in advance, to the entry by the landlord

An example of this would be when you tell your tenant that you will be entering his/her unit to change the batteries in the smoke detector on Friday at 3 pm and the tenant tells you to go ahead and enter the night before if you can, as they will be having guests over on Friday at 3 pm.

2. A health or safety emergency exists

This exception includes many situations, such as if a tenant falls and is injured in their unit and requires emergency aid, when a tree limb falls through the roof, when an infestation of rodents or bedbugs are discovered, during or after a grease fire, etc. etc.

3. The tenant is absent from the rental unit and the landlord reasonably believes that entry is needed in order to protect the property from damage

This could include situations where a tenant left the water running causing the tub to overflow which is now damaging the bathroom floor and ceiling of the tenant who lived in the unit below.

The Penalties:

Because the above information is contained in ATCP 134, if a landlord violates any of the above provisions, a landlord may be subject to paying the tenant double his/her damages and the tenant's actual attorney's fees. I am also aware of situations where a tenant has claimed that a landlord entered the rental unit without advance notice and stole the tenant's personal property -- this has resulted in the police being called, trespass citations being issued (not properly in my opinion but they were nonetheless issued) and on one occassion a physical altercation between landlord and tenant which resulted in a temporary restraining order being filed and lengthy litigation.

Tenant's often mistakenly believe that a landlord cannot enter their unit unless they are present. A tenant's presence is not required under the Wisconsin Statutes or ATCP 134. A landlord is allowed to enter a tenant's rental unit in the tenant's absence if the above provisions are otherwise followed (and assuming there is no contrary provision in any applicable municipal code).

What should a landlord do if a tenant denies the landlord entry to the apartment? This happens more frequently then one would think and I am amazed when landlords call me and ask me if they should force their way into the unit. Technically, a landlord has the right to enter the unit since a tenant is not allowed to deny entry to a landlord who has complied with the proper notice provisions -- but step back and take a deep breath -- just because you can legally enter does not mean that you should enter. Why risk a possible altercation? Who knows what state of mind (or intoxication) an tenant may be in? Why risk possible injury? Why risk the police becoming involved. Wait a couple of days until tempers have subsided and then explain to the tenant why you need to enter the unit and that legally you have a right to do so. If the tenant still denies you entry, and there is a valid reason for you to enter the unit, then you may want to consider contacting the local police to see if they would be willing to accompany you during the visit. You should also consider alternate remedies, like eviction.

While it is important to remember that a tenant has the right to privacy and sole possession of the rental unit, that does not mean that a landlord should ignore his/her investment. A landlord should conduct regular and periodic inspections of all rental properties. I personally inspect my rentals twice per year. I conduct one inspection in early January when I am making my annual change of the batteries in the smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector. I conduct my second inspection about 6 months thereafter during the month of June.

Had the Virginia landlord referenced in the article I mentioned earlier conducted periodic inspections of his tenant's rental unit, he would have discovered his tenant's hoarding problem and possibly been able to prevent $98,000 in damages that resulted. Don't end up in the same or similar situation -- make sure that you make periodic inspections of your rental properties.

Imagine If Every Tenant Received A Free Lawyer In Eviction Actions . . . It Could Become A Reality

If Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc, 274 lawyers, 7 judges and 2 court commissioners,have it their way, all indigent persons that are involved in civil lawsuits involving issues of "basic human needs" will be given a free lawyer.

According to a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article and ABA Journal article the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been petitioned and asked to require that all indigent persons involved in civil lawsuits that involve issues impacting an individual's basic human needs, such as sustenance, shelter, clothing, heat, medical care, safety, and child custody and placement, be provided a free lawyer to represent them in th elegal proceedings.

The proposed cost on taxpayers would be anywhere from $50 million to $80 million per year.

If this "civil Gideon rule" is passed you can expect that almost every tenant that wants one will be given a free lawyer to defend them in an eviction action. This will greatly affect landlords on many fronts. First, it will result in a delay in the overall process of removing a tenant from a rental unit thus allowing the tenant to remain in the rental unit longer and result in the landlord losing more rent. Second, it will increase a landlord's costs by (most likely) increasing the cost to file an eviction action, and then result in higher attorney's fees should the landlord opt to retain a lawyer; if the landlord handles the eviction himself/herself then s/he will lose more time and money by having to take off work. Third, assuming that the $50 million - $80 million estimated costs to pay for the "free lawyers" are not entirely covered by an increase in civil filing fees, landlords will most likely see an increase in taxes in some way, shape, or form.

Since the majority of the eviction cases that I encounter involve the tenant not paying rent and has no legal defense, I see this proposed rule as only causing additional court congestion and delay.

In a state such as Wisconsin, which already has very tenant-friendly laws and regulations to begin with, and has courts that often go out of their way to give tenant's additional time to vacate (in violation of state statutes), and even goes so far as to provide legal advice to tenants (which they should not be doing), this civil Gideon rule, if passed, will make it even more difficult for landlords to continue to survive in the rental industry.

Added October 19, 2010 --- Here is a recent blog post by David Ziemer of the Wisconsin Law Journal about the Civil Gideon rule.