Wisconsin Supreme Court Issues Koble Investments vs. Elicia Marquardt Decision
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Tristan Pettit and Atty. Gary Koch, and edited by Atty. Jennifer Hayden, all of Pettit Law Group S.C.
At long last (oral arguments were held back in September of 2025!), the Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued its decision in the Koble Investments vs. Elicia Marquardt case. The wait has been worth it! The Landlord prevailed on all issues, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the prior decision by the Court of Appeals.
Just to bring you back up to speed, tenant Elicia Marquardt sued her landlord, Koble Investments, claiming that her rental agreement contained a prohibited rental provision which was allegedly a violation of Wis. Stat. 704.44 - one of the “10 Deadly Sins” - that voided her lease. She argued that because her lease was void, all rent she paid to her landlord under the void lease needed to be returned to her, doubled (because of consumer protection statutes), and that Koble would need to pay HER attorney’s fees. She also argued that the Wisconsin Consumer Act should apply to residential rental agreements. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with her!
For a more in-depth analysis of the history, please see our prior blog posts:
· ATTENTION LANDLORDS: Wisconsin Court of Appeals case of Koble v. Marquardt Is Now Law
· Update on the Koble Investments vs. Elicia Marquardt Case at the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Koble appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which issued its written decision earlier today.
In its opinion, authored by Justice Bradley and joined by 6 of the 7 Justices, along with two concurring opinions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals' decision!
First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin Consumer Act’s (WCA) prohibited debt collection practices statutes do not apply to residential rental agreements, for multiple reasons. The Concurring opinion of Justices Bradley and Ziegler argued that the majority opinion should have gone further and held that the WCA doesn't apply to residential landlord-tenant law at all.
The majority opinion noted that, “[f]or the first time since the legislature enacted the WCA in 1971, the court of appeals held that a residential lease is a ‘consumer transaction’ with ‘an agreement to defer payment’ governed by the WCA.” The Court quickly corrected the Court of Appeals’ error, holding that the prohibited practices portion of Wisconsin Consumer Act “does not govern a residential lease . . .”
Justice Bradley and Ziegler’s concurrence stated, “The same reasoning underlying the court’s conclusion that 427.104 does not cover residential leases applies with equal force to the entire WCA. The history and application of the WCA verify its plain meaning: the WCA does not apply to residential leases. For the benefit of the public, the regulated community, and the executive branch, the court should say so.”
This is great news!
But the news gets even better.
Second, the Supreme Court found that the rental provision rendering Ms. Marquardt’s rental agreement void did not cause her to suffer any pecuniary loss and therefore, she has nothing to recover, including her attorney’s fees.
The Court did not address the root question of whether Koble’s rental agreement provision was prohibited absent the Domestic Abuse Protection language because Ms. Marquardt did not show that the alleged violation of 704.44 (9) caused her any damages.
The majority wrote: “While Marquardt did pay rent, the law does not allow a tenant to occupy premises rent-free simply because the lease is void and unenforceable. Under Wisconsin law, a tenant occupying a premises under a void and unenforceable lease becomes a ‘periodic tenant’ under Wis. Stat. 704.01(2) obligated to pay rent on whatever basis she had been paying rent under the lease - in this case on a monthly basis.”
The Court held that there MUST be a causal connection between the prohibited practice and any potential damages to the tenant.
The majority wrote, “A party asserting a pecuniary loss for the purposes of Wis. Stat. 100.20(5) must show that there is a causal connection between the prohibited trade practice. . . and the damages incurred.”
Take a few moments to read the decision and concurrences – they are good reading, and have quite a few memorable quotes.
This decision is a collective relief for the entire rental housing industry.
T + G + J
This blog post was drafted by Atty. Tristan Pettit and Atty. Gary Koch, and edited by Atty. Jennifer Hayden, all of Pettit Law Group S.C.
