SUING AN EX-TENANT FOR PAST DUE RENT: What Factors To Consider

Your tenant has already vacated your rental unit - so there is no need to file an eviction action -- but they left owing you money. Is it worth your time and effort to sue them in order to obtain a money judgment? This is probably the third most frequently asked question that I receive when talking to landlords (the first two most asked questions in case you are curious are (1) which notice do I use when? and (2) how do I evict my tenant?).

There is not a simple answer to this question. It depends . . . on many things. Many variables need to be taken into consideration before deciding to spend the time and effort to sue an ex-tenant. Let's consider what some of those variables are.

1. How much money does the tenant owe you?

Is the amount that is owed to you worth the time, energy, and cost to attempt to collect it? You will need to purchase a small claims summons which will cost you approximately $100. You will need to personally serve the ex-tenant with the assistance of the Sheriff or a private process server -- typical cost between $35-$100. If you are representing yourself you will spend time away from work and therefore lose some wages. If you opt to hire a lawyer to represent you, you need to consider how much you will have to pay the lawyer.

There is no magic dollar amount that makes suing a tenant worth it or not worth it. The "breaking point" as I like to call it, will be different for different people.

2. Do you have the necessary information to sue the ex-tenant?

Do you have a fully completed rental application fro the tenant and have you updated the information contained in the application since the tenant first moved in? To assist with a potentail collections issue in the future, a good application should at least contain the name and address of the applicant's employer, the name and address of the applicant's bank, and emergency contact information for the tenant's relatives or close friends. If your rental application contains the above then you will already have some of the information that may assist you in collecting the debt that is owed you.

Other information that you will need is the current address of the ex-tenant. Did s/he leave you a forwarding address? If not, you will need to find him or her so that they can be served with the lawsuit. Check CCAP and/or the Milwaukee Municipal Court site to see if they have recently been sued or received a traffic ticket which may provide you with a current address. Contact your postman/woman and see if the ex-tenant has forwarded their mail to a new address. If so, see if they will provide that new address to you (typically the answer is "no"). You can also hire a skip-tracer to locate the whereabouts of the tenant, but typically you will need to wait a period of time for the ex-tenant to become established at their new address before tht data will become available. Consider contacting the emergency contact person/s listed on the ex-tenant's rental application to see if they know where you can reach the debtor.

If you do not have a current address for your ex-tenant, you will end up having to serve them at their last-known address (which is your rental unit) and becasue your process server will not be able to personally serve them since they do not live there any longer, you will end up needing to publish notice against them (this is when you pay a local newspapaerr to publish notice of the court date ) - in Milwaukee the cost to do this is $60.

3. Is the ex-tenant collectible?

When you obtain a money judgment against a person, you essentially receive a piece of paper which is called a "judgment." Having a judgment against someone does not mean the same as getting paid on that judgment. I have yet to encounter any ex-tenant that came knocking on my door begging me to take the money that they owe me. Usually they require a little prodding. So, after obtaining a judgment you will often need to spend additional time and money to collect on that judgment. If your ex-tenant is not "collectible" then it may not even be worth it to sue them

There are numerous factors that you should consider when determining if a person is collectible or not. Are they employed? Do they have a bank account? Are they receiving need-based public assistance? Are they self-employed? Does their household income fall below the federal poverty line? Are their wages already being garnished? Have they been employed at the same job for a significant period of time? Do they have good credit? Are they currently paying child support? If so, how many children are they paying child support for and how old are the children? Are they incarcerated? Did they move out of state? These are only a few of the factors that you should consider when deciding how to proceed.

If the person is employed then you might be able to collect the judgment by filing a garnishment of their wages. A garnishment action is a separate lawsuit that requires you to purchase another summons. Even if the person is employed there are several exemptions that may prevent you from garnishing his/her wages. If the ex-tenant's houshold income is below the federal poverty line then they are exempt from garnishment. If the ex-tenant is receiving any state-based aid then their wages are exempt. 80% of a debtor's disposable earnings are exempt from garnishment, leaving only 20% that can be garnished at one time. If your ex-tenant is currently being garnished by another creditor you will have to wait in line until that garnishment is completed -- garnishments last for 13 weeks. If your ex-tenant is self-employed you can bet that they will not voluntarily garnish their own wages - so that option will be closed to you. If the debtor is paying child support for one child (typically 17% of their gross wages) there will not be much money left over for you to garnish. If the ex-tenant is paying child support for 2 children (typically 25% of their gross wages) there will be no money left for you to garnish. You will be forced to wait until these children reach the age of 18 or the child support orders are terminated. Even if you are fortunate enough to be able to garnish your ex-tenant's wages, if that individual should decide to leave their job or get fired, your garnishment will end.

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to intercept an individual's tax refund -- only the government can do that. If your ex-tenant is incarcerated s/he will not have any wages to garnish. If your ex-tenant has horrible credit already they will not care that you took another judgment against them.

You can also garnish a person's bank account. However, there are many exemptions that can apply here as well. For instance, the first $1,000 in the account is exempt from garnishment. Most tenant's that I have rented to do not have more than $1K in the bank. Any money in the account that is derived from government benefits is also exempt. If the garnishment exemptions do not apply, and you are lucky enough to be able to go forward, make sure that you do not make the mistake of serving the debtor before you serve the bank so that the debtor has time to drain his/her account.

If you do not possess the necessary information to evaluate whether or not a person is "collectible," you are able to serve the debtor with what is referred to as a Financial Disclosure Statement. This is a document that is signed by a judge or court commissioner and requires a debtor to divulge any assets, jobs, and bank accounts. The debtor rarely returns this document and therefore the landlord in once again placed in the position of deciding whether or not s/he should spend more time, energy and money to compel the debtor to provide the information.

4. Is there a chance that the ex-tenant may end up purchasing real estate in the future?

If you think there is a possibility that your ex-tenant will purchase a home within the next 10 years then it may be worth it to at least take a judgment against them and then docket the judgment. Docketing a judgment is very simple and only costs $5. By docketing a judgment a lien will be placed on any property owned by the debtor or acquired by the debtor within the next 10 years in the county in which it was docketed. The judgment will also accumulate interest at the rate of 12% per year. Because of this some landlords will choose to sue the tenant, obtain a judgment, docket the judgment, and then just sit and wait.

If you are stuck in a position where it just doesn't make sense to sue your ex-tenant because the amount owed is too little or the tenant is not collectible you should consider a new service offerred by Rent Recovery Service. For a small fee, Rent Recovery Service will report your ex-tenant's debt to the 3 credit bureas even if you do not have a judgment. By using RRS you will at the very least create havoc with the debtor's credit and will also alert any future landlords (that are smart enough to run a credit report) that the tenant owes money to a prior landlord. Who knows, that could be enough of a push to make the tenant pay you what is owed. For more information on Rent Recovery Service please see my prior post.

The decision to sue an ex-tenant for past due rent and damages is not always an easy decision. A lot of information and knowledge needs to be sifted through to determine if it is worth your time, effort, and money to initiate a lawsuit. I would enjoy hearing what other factors you consider when making this important decision -- please let me know by posting a comment.

How To Legally Serve A 5-Day Notice To Pay Rent or Vacate

There are basically 4 ways in which you can legally serve a tenant with a 5-Day Notice To Pay Rent or Vacate. First, you can personally serve the tenant with the notice. Second, you can serve them by what I refer to as a "substituted" service. Third, you can "post and mail" the notice to the tenant. Fourth, you can serve the tenant via certified or registered mail.

Landlords in Wisconsin are legally allowed to serve the notice to pay or quit on the tenant themselves. This is very different from the service of the eviction lawsuit (summons and complaint) which Wisconsin law will not allow to be served by a landlord or his/her agent.

Set forth below the are the 4 service options (as I categorize them) and the pros and cons of each option.

1. Personal Service: This form of service occurs when the notice is physically handed to the tenant. While this option sounds pretty simple it often ends up being more complicated. It becomes complicated because many landlords believe that if they cannot serve the tenant personally after the first attempt that they are allowed to post the notice on the door and be done with it -- WRONG. Wisconsin Statutes require that the Landlord use "reasonable diligence" before they can resort to service via "posting and mailing." "Reasonable diligence" is not defined in the statutes. As such, what constitutes "reasonable diligence" is decided by the court commissioner or judge that is hearing your case - and oftentimes the definition of "reasonable diligence" will change depending on which judge or commissioner you are before.

In Milwaukee County it has been unofficially declared that "reasonable diligence" means you must make at least 3 different attempts to personally serve the tenant and those 3 differernt attempts must occur on 3 different days and at 3 different times. For example, if you tried to serve the notice on the tenant on Monday at 8 am and they were not home, you would then have to wait until Tuesday to make your 2nd attempt in the afternoon. If you still couldn't personally serve the tenant on Tuesday then you would need to come back on Wednesday and to attempt to serve the tenant again but this time in the evening hours. Three different days at three different times of day. So if your tenant is home and answers the door then personal service is pretty easy. However, if they are not home or are dodging service then you could waste 3-4 days before you can legally "post and mail" the notice. This is an unecessary delay.

Another drawback to personal service is the fact that you may end up face to face with your tenant. If there is some animosity between you and the tenant (as there often is when the tenant realizes that you will be evicting them if they don't pay rent) personal sevice of the notice could result in a personal confrontation.

2. Substituted Service: The second option is what I refer to as "substituted service" and essentially means you are serving someone else with the notice on behalf of the tenant. I almost never recommend that a client opt for substituted service because of all of the potential problems. Under section 704.21 of the Wisconsin Statutes you can serve a tenant by substituted service by serving a "competent family member who is at least 14 years old and who has been informed of the contents of the notice" or by "leaving a copy of the notice with a person apparently in charge, or occupying, the premises and mailing a copy to the tenant's last known address."

There are many potential pitfalls with substituted service. First, you will need to inquire as to the age of the person you are giving the notice to to insure that they are at least 14 years old. Second, you need to tell them what the notice is and what it means. I have been involved in a case in which the landlord served the tenant's son with the notice knowing that he was 16 years old. However when the case went to court the tenant raised as a defense the fact that her son was mentally retarded and only functioned at a third grade level and forgot to give her the notice. Rather right or wrong, the eviction lawsuit was dismissed for improper service.

Under the second option for substituted service, the landlord must leave a copy of the notice with a person "apparently in charge of the premises, or occupying the premises" and also mail the notice. I have seen many landlords forget to mail the notice under this option and as a result the service was declared improper and the eviction lawsuit dismissed. I have also heard of a situation in which the landlord served the notice on a gentleman (who was not a tenant but based on only being clothed in only boxer shorts he certainly appeared to be "apparently in charge or occupying the premises."), only to find out at the intial appearance in court that the gentleman was someone that the tenant "picked up" at a bar the night before and failede to notify the tenant that he was given the notice but rather threw it in the garbage. I know, I know, you are saying regardless of the "one night stand" throwing th enotice away, it still was a proper service as the landlord mailed the notice to the tenant as well, which he did. I would agree with you 100% but I was told that was not what the court commissioner concluded. Instead the court commissioner stated that becasue of the fact that the "one night stand" threw the notice in the garbage, the tenant didn't have proper notice of her ability to cure the breach by paying the past due rent to the landlord within 5 days, and as such the notice was improper.

Do you still think that serving a notice on a tenant is easy?

3. Post and Mail: As mentioned previously, if after using "reasonable diligence" and trying to serve the tenant by the above methods you are unable to personally serve or serve the tenant by substituted service, then -- and only then -- are you able to "post and mail." To "post" means to place a copy of the notice in a conspicuous location on the property. Oftentimes this is performed by tacking the notice to the tenant's door or sliding the notice under the door. The landlord must also mail the notice to the tenant. Problems arise if the lanldord fails to mail the notice or does not mail the notice on the same day as s/he posts the notice. If the landlord mails the notice the day after the posting then the date of service will be on the date that it was mailed - not the date that it was posted.

Sec. 704.19(7)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes states that when "posting and mailing" or "leaving a copy of the notice with a person apparently in charge of or occupying the premises," the notice is deemed to have been given on the day of service OR the date of mailing - whichever is later. I have seen numerous cases where the landlord failed to mail the notice on the same day that it was posted and therefore it was determined that the eviction lawsuit was prematurely filed.

4. Certified or Registered Mail: Personally, I feel this is the best way to serve a tenant a 5-Day notice. You are not required to attempt to personally serve a tenant with the notice before serving via certified or registered mail so you can disregard "reasonable diligence." Nor must you attempt to obtain substituted service on the tenant before you can choose to serve via certified/registered mail. Certified and registered mail also does NOT need to be picked up by the tenant in order for the service to be proper. The law merely requires that the notice be mailed via certified or registered mail for it so be legally served. By using certified or regular mail you also eliminate any possible confrontation with the tenant. You eliminate the need to attempt to personally serve the tenant 3 different times on 3 different days at 3 different times of day. You also eliminate all of the potential pitfalls with substituted service.

Serving a notice on a tenant via certified/registered mail is not without complications however. When serving a tenant with a notice via certified/registered mail you must remember to add an additional 2 days for mailing on top of the notice period per section 704.19(7)(c), Wis. Stats. So, in effect the 5-Day notice becomes a 7-day notice. This means that the landord must insure that he does not file the eviction lawsuit (assuming the tenant does not cure the breach by paying the past due rent within the cure period) until at leasr 7 days after mailing the notice via certified or registered mail. Another negative of certified or regestered mail is the cost. If you own or manage many properties and send out a lot of 5-Day notices each month then the cost of certified/registered mail may be prohibitive.

Please be aware that if you own or manage subsidized housing that there are special service requirements for the 5-Day notice that may apply depending on the type of subsidy that is involved.

AASEW Has New Online Forum at MeetUp.com

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW) has recently joined MeetUp.com. Registration and participation is free.

Below is the introductory message by AASEW Board member and organizer, Tim Ballering:

Welcome to the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI. Thank you for joining our MeetUp group.

Our objective is to help members become more successful landlords, investors and managers.

We are the oldest and largest landlord group in Southeastern WI. Members include many larger owners, mom and pop owners, businesses that provide services to the rental housing industry, and many of the best landlord / tenant and real estate attorneys in the state.

The Association provides training in evictions, collections and other aspects necessary for you to succeed. Many of our business members offer discounts to Association members.

We also provide discounted tenant screening and bad debt reporting for our members.

We provide free eviction notices to members as well as other forms.

We are a nonprofit, member managed association since 1977.

We look forward to meeting you.

The Association's webpage

www.apartmentassoc.org

Have landlord or real estate questions? Join the discussion at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ApartmentAssoc

SSN Validator: Free Website That Allows You to Verify A Social Security Number

I attended last night's AASEW monthly meeting which featured Kathy Huens of Landlord Services, LLC as the main speaker. Landlord Services, LLC is a company that provides credit reports to landlords to assist them in the screening process of rental applicants. Landlord Services, LLC is a business member of the AASEW and comes highly reccomended. During Kathy's speech she alerted the audience to a website that allows you to verify certain information regarding a person's social security number.

SSN Validator allows you to input a person's social security number and will then provide you with basic information such as:

- Has that SSN been issued or not,

- Approximate date when the SSN was issued,

- State in which the SSN was issued,

- Whether or not the person that was issued that SSN is deceased.

This website is completely free. I have added this site to my list of websites to assist you during the screening process. Use of this website will certainly assist a landlord in determining whether or not a SSN supplied by a prospective tenant is valid. For instance if the applicant appears to be between the age range of 20-30 years old and the SSN Validator indicates that the SSN was issued in 1950 -- you now have a red flag and will need to do some more due dilligence on that applicant. Or suppose that after inputting the rental applicant's SSN you are notified that the person to whom that SSN was issued is deceased - you have now been alerted to the possibility that your applicant has assumed another's identity.

I love free tools that assist me in evaluating my rental applicants. Thanks Kathy!

AASEW'S Annual Landlord Tradeshow To Be Held On September 16th at Serb Hall

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin's (AASEW) 10th Annual Landlord Tradeshow and Seminar will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 from 12 noon - 7 pm at American Serb Hall (5101 W. Oklahoma Ave, Milwaukee).

Admission is free for rental property owners and potential owners. Free food and snacks will be offerred. This is a great event for landlords, future landlords, property managers, real estate investors, and anyone else interested in learning how to succeed in today's real estate market.

Attendees will learn how to run their rental properties with more profit and less hassle. They will also have the opportunity to meet the vendors that rental property owners use on a regular basis.

Seminars that will be presented include:

- "How To Collect Tenant Bad Debt" by Bill Gray of Rent Recovery Services

- "Causes for Eviction: Which Notice To Use When" by Tristan Pettit, Esq. of Petrie & Stocking S.C.

- "New Lead Paint Renovation Rules" by Ada Duffy of Milwaukee Lead and Asbestos Center

- "How To Improve the Eviction Process" by the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department

- "How To Benefit from a 1031 Exchange" by Patrick Harrington, Esq. of M&I 1031 Exchange Service

- Town Hall Meeting - Get Answers to Your Rental Property Questions featuring: Attorney Tristan R. Pettit of Petrie & Stocking S.C. and AASEW President, Attorney Heiner Giese of Giese & Weiden LLC and AASEW's general counsel, and Susan Ipsarides, Portfolio Director for StuartCo.

For more information go to www.LandlordTradeShow.com

You will not want to miss this! Hope to see you there.

Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8 Rent Assistance) Are Not A "Lawful Source of Income" In Wisconsin

I am often asked whether or not a landlord is able to legally decline to rent to a tenant that is receiving "rent assistance." I believe that the primary reason that landlords are unsure of the answer to this question is because Wisconsin's Open Housing Act (Sec. 106.50, Wis. Stats.) prohibits a landlord from discriminating against a tenant or a prospective tennat based on their "lawful source of income." For more information on Wisconsin's protected classes you should read my prior post entitled "FAIR HOUSING - Part 1: What Are The Protected Classes?"

The Housing Choice Vouchers Program (previously referred to as Section 8 Rent Assistance) is a voluntary federal program that assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to locate housing in the private market. Housing Choice Vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHA's). The PHA's receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the voucher program. If a landlord accepts a tenant who is enrolled in the Housing Choice Voucher Program then the local PHA will pay a housing subsidy (to cover a portion of the tenant's rent) directly to the landlord. The tenant then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. For more information on the program please go to the Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet which is located on HUD's website. The federal regulations that cover this program can be found at 24 CFR Part 982.

An earlier version of the Wisconsin Administrative Code defined "lawful source of income" as including "lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided, profit from financial investments, any negotiable draft, coupon, or voucher representing monetary value such as food stamps, social security, public assistance or unemployment compensation benefits. Sec. IND 89.01(8), Wisc. Admin. Code. (Please Note that this section of the Code is no longer available). Lawful source of income would also include child support payments, family support payments (i.e. alimony).

Under the above definition it would seem that "rent assistance" would be considered to be a lawful source of income, however the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- which includes Wisconsin -- held otherwise in the 1995 case of Knapp v. Eagle Property Management Corp., 54 F.3d 1272, 63 USLW 2750 (1995).

The court in Knapp specifically held that rent assistance vouchers are NOT considered to be a lawful source of income under Wisconsin's Open Housing Act. The court reasoned that the Section 8 voucher "does not equate" to the other forms of aid mentioned above. The Court explained that of the types of income enumerated in the regulation, that rent assistance vouchers would be the most like food stamps -- but yet they are still very different. Unlike food stamps, rent assistance vouchers do not have a montary value independant of the voucher holder and the apartment sought. Additionally, unlike other forms of support, the local housing authority that administers the federal program makes the rent assistance payments directly to the landlord, rather than to the voucher holder.

The Knapp Court did acknowledge that while rent assistance vouchers could arguably be included within the definition of "lawful source of income" under the Wisconsin Statutes, that they would "decline to ascribe such an intent to the state legislature because of the potential problems in doing so."

The primary problem that the Court was referring to is that if section 8 vouchers were to be considered a "lawful source of income" then Wisconsin would in essence be making the Section 8 program mandatory for all Wisconsin landlords. As mentioned above the federal program is voluntary. The court felt that it would be wrong to allow a state to make a voluntary federal program mandatory without the legislature clearly stating that that was its intent.

Thus, it is because of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's holding in Knapp that landlords in Wisconsin are legally allowed to refuse to rent to a prospective tenant that is on "rent assistance."

ADDED after reviewing comment: PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE RECIPIENTS OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS PROTECTED --- So it is always important to check the local ordinances in which you hold property as local municipalities are allowed to create additional protected classes. Dane County and the City of Madison are notable for doing this.

New Bill To Be Introduced Requiring Landlords to Change Locks For Tenants In Cases Of Domestic Violence

A new bill that would require a landlord to change locks for a tenant in cases of domestic violence is being shopped around for additional sponsors. State Rep. Dexter and Senator Holperin have drafted a proposed bill, which has not yet been introduced, which would allegedly protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring landlords to change the locks of the victim's apartment unit within 48 hours if certain conditions are met.

ADDED 8/31/09 -- The bill has officially been introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate. The proposed text of Senate Bill 274 (AB 400) is now available.

Specifically, the bill requires a landlord to change the locks of a tenant's unit -- or give a tenant permission to do so -- if the tenant requests that the locks be changed and provides the landlord with a certified copy of any of the following: (1) injunction order protecting the tenant or tenant's child from the person, (2) a condition of release [from prison] ordering the person to have no contact with the tenant or the tenant's child, (3) a criminal complaint alleging that the person sexually assualted or stalked the tenant or the tenant's child, or (4) a criminal complaint filed against the person as a result of an arrest for committing a domestic abuse act against the tenant.

If the tenant supplies her landlord with one of the documents mentioned above and requests that her locks be changed then her landlord must change the tenant's locks within 48 hours after receiving the request.

The tenant will be required to pay for the cost of the lock change.

There will be an exception to the above which will come into play if the person who is the subject of the injunction order or criminal complaint is also a tenant living at the same unit for which the lock change is requested. If that happens then the landlord will not be required to change the locks unless there is also an injunction that prohibits the tenant from entering the property of the tenant making the request or there is a condition of release [from prison] ordering the tenant not to contact the tenant that is making the request.

Since this legislation has not yet been officially introduced there is not a link to the actual bill yet available on the Wisconsin Legislature's website. When the bill is officially introduced I will add the link.

Worthless Check Diversion Program: An Opportunity To Collect On "Bad Checks"

The Miwaukee County District Attorneys Office has adopted a new program that will hopefully allow landlords to collect on bad checks that were passed by their tenants. The goal of the program is to get the bad-check writers to pay back the money owed in exchange for not being charged with a crime or referred to collections.

This program, entitled the Worthless Check Diversion Program, is a positive step for landlords because currently the Milwaukee Police Department will not prosecute tenants that write bad rent checks. See my earlier blog post on this topic entitled "Passing of Worthless Checks Will Not Be Prosecuted in City of Milwaukee."

Assistant District Attorney Ron Dague spearheaded this new program for the DA's Office and even spoke at an AASEW membership meeting about the program back in January of this year. The goal was for the program to be up and running by April. According to a recent Journal Sentinel article entitled "Program Allows Writers of Bad Checks To Pay Up, Avoid Charges" written by Tom Kertscher, the program has been operating for the past few months, however the Milwaukee Police Department is not yet participating.

The program will be run by a company called Financial Crime Services. To participate a landlord that has received a bad check from a tenant must contact Financial Crime Services and provide them with the necessary information. The company will then send a letter to the bad-check writer. If the bad-check writer is willing to participate in the program, which they will have to pay for themselves, they must attend an educational based program to teach them about budgeting, finances and bank fees. Upon completion of the program (which includes paying restitution) the bad-check writer will receive a letter advising them that they will not be criminally prosecuted for committing the crime.

There are no fees to the landlord for participating in this program. If and when restitution is collected, 100% of the money is returned to the landlord. Financial Crime Services will not charge a processing fee or take a percentage of the money collected.

If a tenant (who is now hopefully an ex-tenant) wrote you a bad check that you haven't been able to collect on, this program might be something to look into.

Fair Housing - Part 3: Legal Reasons To Deny A Rental Applicant

From reviewing the analytics program that works in conjunction with my blog, I have learned that my two prior posts on fair housing/discrimination issues peaked a lot of interest which resulted in them being two of my most read posts to date. My prior posts can be read here and here. As a result I have decided to add another post related to Fair Housing issues.

When I give seminars on the topic of screening and accepting tenants, especially after I have just discussed the 12 protected classes, the attendees often feel as if they are not allowed to reject any applicant that is a member of a protected class. The important thing to remember is that you are legally allowed to deny rental to a member of a protected class as long as the reason you are denying them rental is not because they are a member of a protected class. This is a subtle distinction but a very important one. If you keep this distinction in mind during your screening process I think you will feel less "hamstrung" in general and hopefully more confident that you are not running afoul of the law.

Here are some examples of acceptable reasons to deny an applicant rental, which do not violate fair housing laws at the federal, state or local level (at least not in the city of Milwaukee):

1. The person smokes.

2. The person wants to keep a pet (not to be confused with a service animal or a comfort animal, both of which are not pets).

3. The applicant has insufficient income (income is defined broadly and includes more than just a salary from a job)

- Note: The City of Madison does have a local ordinance preventing landlords from denying a rental applicant based on minimum income standards.

4. The person's income cannot be verified.

5. The applicant has been arrested and/or charged with a crime.

- Note: Dane County and the City of Madison have made persons with arrest records or criminal convictions protected classes in some instances.

6. The person has been convicted of a crime.

- Note: Dane County and the City of Madison have made persons with arrest records or criminal convictions protected classes in some instances.

7. The individual has been sued for owing someone money.

8. The applicant has a money judgment against them.

9. The person does not have a prior rental history (1st time renters are not protected).

10. The applicant has a poor rental history.

11. They do not provide complete answers on the application.

12. The applicant provided false information on the application.

13. Prior landlords had negative comments about the applicant and would not rent to them again.

14. The person has poor or no credit history.

15. They have only been employed for a short period of time at their current job ( I prefer to see at least 6 months - 1 year of employment at their current job so that I know there is some stability in their source of income).

16. The individual has filed bankruptcy in the past.

17. They have a foreclosure on their record.

These are just 17 of the many legal reasons that a landlord may deny a person's rental application even if the applicant is a member of a protected class. As long as you are rejecting an applicant for a reason other than the person being a member of a protected class -- such as for the reasons set forth above -- you are not violating the fair housing laws.

To protect yourself further, I strongly suggest that rental property owners and management companies utilize written screening criteria which sets forth the minimum standards that must be met for an applicant to be accepted, or to put it another way, what will cause you to deny an applicant.

Update On Who May Represent A LLC in Eviction Court: New Rules To Start September 1st

Those of you that have been following my blog are aware that Milwaukee County Small Claims Court has indicated that it will not allow non-attorneys to represent LLC's in court in the near future.

My earlier posts on this topic can be read here and here.

A fellow board member from the AASEW informed me today that one of the owner's of a property he manages was handed the notice that I reproduced in my earlier post (you can read it here here), as he was leaving small claims court. The notice indicated that he would no longer be allowed to represent his LLC's in small claims court as of September 1, 2009.

He indicated to the commisioner that handed him the notice that he was a full-time employee of the LLC and therefore can appear on behalf of the LLC in small claims court as allowed under Sec. 799.06(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The court commissioner's reply was something to the effect that, " I see you down here [small claims court] a lot, and you have many LLC's. There is no way that you can be a full-time employee of all of them or you would have to work hundreds of hours per week."

This issue seems to coming to a head very soon. Unless you are a full-time employee of an LLC, and you have written records to prove this, it looks as if September 1, 2009, will be the deadline by which you will need to have made arrangements to have an attorney represent your LLC's in Milwaukee County Small Claims Court or risk having your case either adjourned or dismissed.

03/23/15 - UPDATE - Act 76 (effective 3-1-14) now allows non-attorneys to represent LLC's

Milwaukee's Chronic Nuisance Ordinance and It's Improper Use Against Landlords

The City of Milwaukee's Chronic Nuisance Ordinance (80-10) is a thorn in the side of many landlords. Essentially the ordinance says that if your property generates more than 3 calls for police service for "nuisance activities" within a 30 day period that the city will charge you for the costs associated with abating the alleged nuisance.

Nuisance activities include the following: harassment, disorderly conduct, battery, indecent exposure, prostitution, littering, theft, possession, manufacture or delivery of drugs, gambling, illegal possession of firearms, keeping a dangerous animal, trespass to land, conspiracy to commit a crime, discharge of a firearm, excessive noise, loitering, public drinking, sale of liquor, possession of counterfeit items, possession or selling of drug paraphenalia, selling or giving tobacco products to children, misuse of emergency telephone numbers, harboring an animal that causes a disturbance, illegal use or sale of fireworks, and truancy. In summary, a nuisance activity is pretty much anything and everything you can think of.

If your rental property is being used as a drug house or is the headquarters for a gang or if you are allowing tenant to run a house of prostitution out of your apartment complex then I agree that your property is more than likely occupying more than its fair share of the police department's time and resources and that the property may be a chronic nuisance. But this is not the only -- nor is it the typical -- situation in which this ordinance is being used against landlords.

Oftentimes landlords are having fines added to their property tax bill or being contacted by the police becasue a tenant called 911 to report a legitimate crime, or because a neighbor (who is mad that they live next to an apartment complex) called the police because s/he doesn't like it when the tenants stand and talk in front of the building, or my all-time favorite, a person (not a tenant or the owner) walked by the rental property and decided to drop their hamburger wrapper on the lawn. All of the above instances qualify as nuisance activities under Milwaukee's ordinance and can result in a property being declared a chronic nuisance.

I have heard from many landlords -- both in my capacity as an attorney representing landlords and as the president of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW) -- about circumstances in which they have been contacted by the police as a result of examples similar to those mentioned above. I recently received an email from a new AASEW member who was very upset at being in such a situation and contacted the AASEW for assistance and guidance. I have reproduced the member's email, with his permission, ommitting his name and the property address to protect his identity.

I own a 30 unit building at __________________. Last December there were 2 family arguments in which police were called, and a misdialed 911 call. According to the City's Nuisance Ordinance, 3 or more nuisance calls in any 30 day period from a property puts the owner on a list for "supervision" from the district's community liaison officer for a full 12 months. The owner must submit a plan for abatement for acceptance by MPD, fully execute the plan in a timely manner, check for nuisance incidents monthly at MPD Public Records office, and then submit a report and action plan for abatement for each incident.

My plan was approved and executed. I do have continuing nuisance incidents occurring though, but so far only one was a repeat from the same tenant. She had called the police to report that her son was receiving death threats. If my son where receiving death threats, I'd call the police too, but the community liaison officer told me that that was considered a nuisance, and strongly implied that if I didn't deal with it, the property would be designated as a Chronic Nuisance. So, against my better judgment, I filed an eviction. Of course, I was laughed out of court. As any landlord will tell you, a failed eviction action usually means the situation will deteriorate. This is not good business, but the fact is I'm being strong-armed by MPD to act.

I have taken absolutely EVERY action I was directed to take, or suggested I take, by MPD and more. I have responded to nuisance reports in as heavy-handed ways I can muster, with warnings, fines, and 5 Day Notices, to try and satisfy MPD. However, I feel like I'm being railroaded, and no matter what I do MPD will designate it as a Chronic Nuisance.

Please understand that, while my building is by no means the "Ritz", it is also by no means a slum either. Nor am I a slum landlord. This is a nice building in which we have invested heavily, increasing the value, as well as the tax collections for the City of Milwaukee. We turned this building around from a bad property in 2003, with crappy tenants who avoided calling the police like the plague, to a rehabbed property with much better tenants with higher expectations and no qualms about calling the police to demand service (which I pay for).

My understanding is that this ordinance was originally enacted to give the City some ammunition against irresponsible landlords. I fear that MPD is using the ordinance to coerce landlords to enforce the law in their stead. I have asked MPD on several occasions, both verbally and in writing, to provide me with information regarding any citations given to people who are involved in the nuisance activity, and I have gotten none. The ordinance extends to 911 abuse. Why landlords are put in a position where they are required by MPD to enforce 911 abuse is a mystery to me. Why not fine AT&T - it's their line! The whole thing boils down to MPD's inability to enforce the laws, and the abdication of their enforcement responsibilities in favor of coercing landlords to do their job for them, under threat of fines. The whole thing is, in a word, insane. Even if a landlord is successful in eviction someone, the problem just goes somewhere else anyway.

The final insult to me is the fact that MPD's definition of "property" may be a single family home, or a 30 unit building like mine. I get the same 3 call limit per month for 30 families as a single family in a regular house. I pay 30 times more taxes than the single family owner, but I receive 1/30th of the service quota. In my opinion this is an impossible and patently unfair standard.

There are single family homes and condos next to some of my buildings where the tenants are involved in gun play, drugs and prostitution. I have lost tenants due to these neighboring activities. Alas, these are not nuisance properties because there are less than 3 calls per month regarding each property. I have a few family disputes and misdialed 911 calls each month from my 30 family building, and I'm the nuisance.

I thought that this individual's email was extremely well-written and clearly pointed out several of the problems with how the City is applying the Chronic Nuisance property against landlords, such as:

1. Regardless of the size of the property (whether it be a single family home or a 100 unit apartment complex) after 3 "nuisance activities" your property can be declared a chronic nuisance.

2. Many of the so-called nuisance activities are not activities for which a Milwaukee County Court Commissioner or Judge will evict a tenant for participating in. As this person stated, the writer indicaterd, when he tried to evict the tenant he was "laughed out of court." I have been involved in eviction trials where at the close of evidence, rather then evicting the tenant that was selling drugs out of my client's property, the Judger told the tenant that he really didin't need to have 20 people coming and going from his apartment between the hours of 11 pm and 3 am most nights of the week and that he should stop that activity as it wasn't fair to his neighbors. The Judge then denied my clients request for a judgment of eviction but rather scheduled the case for a staus conference in 60 days to see if things improved. If landlords cannot even get obvious drug dealers evicted how are they going to be able to have a tenant that littered, called 911, or made an excessive noise evicted?

3. Some of the 911 calls are legitimate calls for which the police should be called and the owner of that property should not be put in the position of having to choose between receiving a fine and having his/her property declared to be a nuisance or telling his tenants not to call 911 for real emergencies.

4. Oftentimes the property that is attributed with the call is not where the actual "nuisance activity" occurred. I heard of an instance where a woman had gotten into a fight with her boyfriend at her home and then fled, she then stopped at a nearby apartment complex and asked one of the tenant's if she could use her phone to call the police. Seeing that the lady was upset, the tenant allowed her to make the call. The lady called 911. As a result of the tenant being a helpful neighbor to the victim, the tenant's landlord was contacted by the police becasue the telephone call was considered to be an improper use of an emergency number.

I think the police and the Department of Neighborhood Services (which often gets involved in these situations) need to use some "common sense" and distinguish true nuisance activity from other activity rather than classifying everything as a nuisance.

I also think that it would also be helpful for the police and DNS to spend some time in eviction court and observe just how difficult it is to evict a tenant for anything other than failure to pay rent. Maybe after sitting in room 400 of the Milwaukee County Courthouse for an afternoon they will realize that they are living in an alternate universe if they think that a landlord can obtain an eviction judgment against a tenant who litters, improperly calls 911, makes loud noises, or loiters.

I have met with the new Commissioner of DNS, Art Dahlberg, along with other members of the AASEW board, and Mr. Dahlberg was also kind enough to speak at one of the AASEW's membership meetings. In speaking with the Commissioner, he has commented that he agrees that some common sense used when determining if something a a nuisance activity. It is my hope that the addition of some common sense will occur ASAP so that landlords like the one that emailed me above, are not being placed in such an unfair position.

If Milwaukee's Chrnoic Nuisance ordinance has been unfairly applied to you and your rental properties I would appreciate you providing me with the details by adding a comment to this post.

State's Budget Bill Amends Tenant Protection Act

On June 29, 2009 Governor Jim Doyle signed the 2009-11 state biennial budget bill into law. This law in part made modifications to the Tenant Protection Act (starts on page 108) which offers tenants certain protections during the foreclosure process. My earlier post on the Tenant Protection Act can be read here.

Specifically, the state budget bill modified the current law related to tenant protections in foreclosure actions as follows:

1. ADDED - If an eviction action seeks to remove a tenant whose tenancy was terminated as a result of a foreclosure judgment and sale, the complaint must identify that the lawsuit is an eviction that is being brought as a result of a foreclosure action.

2. ADDED - A tenant cannot be named as a party in a foreclosure action unless s/he has a lien or ownership interest in the property. The fact that a tenant lives in the rental property that is being foreclosed upon is not enough to name them as a party in a foreclosure action.

3. ADDED - If a tenant is improperly named as a party in a foreclosure action the court shall award the tenant $250 in damages plus his/hers reasonable attorney's fees.

4. DELETED - The portion of the Tenant Protection Act that required the exclusion of any tenant information related to foreclosure actions from appearing on CCAP. That section was replaced with #2 above.

Milwaukee County to Post Notice on Who Can File and Appear in Court on Eviction Actions

A friend of mine who is an employee at the courthouse and does much work in small claims court, and more specifically eviction court, forwarded to my attention earlier today a copy of a notice that will soon be posted in Room 400 (Eviction Court) and Room 104 (Clerk of Courts) of the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

The notice addresses the issues of who may sign an eviction summons and complaint and who may appear in court on an eviction lawsuit.

The notice that will be posted reads as follows:

_____________________

PLEASE NOTE

In Small Claims Eviction cases, you may only sign complaints and appear in court on behalf of a property owner if you are one of the following:

• The property owner (if the property is not owned by a corporation/limited liability corporation)
• A full time employee of the property owner
• An attorney

Employees of management companies or other outside service providers may not sign complaints or appear on behalf of property owners

__________________

If this notice is going to be posted then it appears as if the clerks, court commissioners and judges will be dismissing eviction lawsuits that violate the above notice.

To read my earlier posts on these topics just click here and here.

AASEW's Response to Rep. Schneider's CCAP Legislation Can Be Found at www.DefeatAB340.org

For those of you that have been following my blog, you are well aware that State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) has introduced yet another bill attempting to restrict the public's access to CCAP. This new bill also will remove certain information from even being included on CCAP. My prior blogs on this topic can be read here, here and here.

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW), a collection of landlords and rental property managers, are strongly opposed to Schenider's new bill which is entitled AB 340, and have decided to do something about it. The AASEW has created a web page that can be found at www.DefeatAB340.org or by clicking here, which contains links to the actual bill as well as links to your state senators and representative so that you can contact them and convey your displeasure with this bill.

Please visit the AASEW's web page and consider contacting your elected officials to express your views as to AB 340. You should also forward the link to anyone and everyone you know that may be affected by this legislation.

If passed, this bill will affect more than just landlords. Parents, employers, day care providers and more, will be unable to use CCAP without paying an annual fee and having their CCAP searches recorded by the state. Additionally, you will be unable to learn whether a person has been charged with a crime, found liable in a civil lawsuit, or had an eviction action filed against them - until after the case has been resolved, which is often months or years after the action was filed.

The bill will also allow a person who has information contained on CCAP but which did not result in a convictions or judgment (even if this was the result of a stipulated dismissal) to remove all reference to that information from CCAP. The concept of open records will be hurt severly should AB 340 pass.

Please do your part to insure that AB340 fails.

FAIR HOUSING - PART 2: Interesting Statistics from HUD's 2008 Annual Report

I was recently reviewing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report on Fair Housing. Not exactly beach reading but then the weather here in Milwaukee isn’t exactly conducive to going to the beach.

HUD and its various Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAP) agencies handle all complaints regarding discrimination related to the federal protected classes. To see a list if the 7 federal protected classes please refer to my earlier post here. The report contained some very interesting statistics. You can review the entire Annual Report here. (Be patient as it is a large document and takes awhile to download)

In 2008, HUD and its FHAP agencies received a record-breaking number of housing discrimination complaints – 10,552. That is a huge number when you realize that only a small portion of complaints are ever reported. Added to that is the fact that most states also receive and investigate fair housing complaints with regard to alleged discrimination of the state’s protected classes (which often overlap with the federal classes). And many large cities also have a municipal agency that investigates complaints as well. In Wisconsin, for instance, the State’s Equal Rights Division (ERD) investigates complaints of Wisconsin’s Open Housing law. For a list of Wisconsin’s protected classes see my earlier posts here.

This is the third year in a row in which HUD and its FHAP agencies received more than 10,000 complaints.

The most common basis of housing discrimination complaints was involving a "disability" (4,675 complaints or 44%) with "race" coming in second place (3,669 complaints or 35%). The most common type of complaint was discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, services or facilities for the sale or rental of housing (5,862 complaints or 56%) – typically this means treating a person differently such as having different requirements or rules for a person based on their protected class status. In second place was the refusal to rent to members of a protected class (2,697 or 26%).

In 2008 HUD and its FHAP agencies closed 11,189 housing discrimination complaints - an all-time record. 54% of those complaints resulted in a determination on the merits by HUD (they made a determination as to whether or not their was discrimination in the specific case), while 29% of the complaints were resolved in a voluntary resolution by the parties prior to HUD making a decision as to whether or not there was discrimination. The remaining cases were closed for administrative reasons, the report states.

Over the last 4 years, apparently the number and the type of complaints have remained relatively stable. There was a slight increase in the number of complaints of disability-related discrimination and a slight decrease in complaints related to a person’s race over the past 4 years.

Fair Housing claims are not inexpensive. Housing discrimination charges that continue to the point that a hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) carry a maximum civil penalty of $16,000 for a 1^st offense. That does not include the actual damages that can be awarded to the aggrieved person, nor do they include the attorney’s fees (of the complainant) or the costs that can be awarded. Even if there is a finding of no discrimination, the cost to pay your own attorney is often quite high because of the length of time it takes for HUD to complete its investigation. Once a complaint has been issued HUD has up to 100 days to conduct its investigation. According to the report, over 800 investigations involved investigations lasting beyond the 100 days. In the several fair housing cases that I have been involved with, the investigation process always lasted longer than 100 days and was very intrusive for my clients and their current and past tenants.

2008 was the first year in which HUD issued its first charge of discrimination in a case that alleged same-sex sexual harassment (two male roommates alleged that the property owner and a maintenance worker subjected one of the roommates to verbal and physical advances that were sexual in nature).

Other key cases in which HUD issued discrimination charges in 2008 included a complaint against a retirement community that refused to allow the use of motorized scooters in the units, and a complaint that a property owner refused to allow the keeping of an emotional support animal by a young boy with a form of autism (Asperger’s Syndrome).

If there is one key point to remember after reviewing HUD’s 2008 Annual Report it is that it is better to be very well-versed in the law of Fair Housing issues so that you can operate in a proactive manner by implementing legal screening and management policies, than it is to have to defend against a charge of discrimination after the damage has already occurred.

FAIR HOUSING - PART 1: What Are The Protected Classes?

A large part of my law practice is meeting with and consulting with landlords and management companies with regard to how to avoid trouble. This would include assisting them with the drafting of rental documents and guiding them on the proper notice to use when terminating a tenancy. It also includes consulting with clients with regard to fair housing / discrimination issues.

I enjoy this consulting work as it typically occurs before the landlord is embroiled in a dispute or litigation – thus my client tends to be in a better mood at the consulting stage which puts me in a better mood also.

Recently I have had a lot of calls on topics related to discrimination and fair housing and so I thought that I would devote several posts in the future to topics related to fair housing issues.

The easiest place to start would be to identify the various protected classes under Federal and Wisconsin law.

Federal law (which starts at 42 U.S.C. 3601 et. seq.) has 7 protected classes which are:

1. Race

2. Color

3. National Origin

4. Sex

5. Religion

6. Familial Status

7. Handicap

Wisconsin law (which is found at §106.50(1), Wis. Stats) also includes the above 7 protected classes plus adds an additional 5 more, which include:

1. Marital Status

2. Sexual Orientation

3. Lawful Source of Income

4. Ancestry

5. Age (18 years and older)

It is important for managers and owners to also check their local municipal ordinances as well as because there are some municipalities that have added additional protected classes. The city of Madison for instance also treats convicted criminals, students, and a person’s physical appearance as additional protected classes. You can read more about the City of Madison municipal code - Ch. 32 entitled Landlord and Tenant here.

So if you make a housing decision based on a person’s membership in a protected class you may have discriminated against them. Discrimination in housing covers a wide range of activities such as: refusing to rent to, refusing to discuss rental terms with, refusing to allow the inspection of rental housing, refusing to renew a lease, causing the eviction of, misrepresenting the availability of rental housing, applying different terms or standards, and engaging in harassment, intimidation, or coercion of. There are many more but you get the general idea.

It is important to remember that a landlord does not need to have the intent to discriminate in order to be found to have engaged in discrimination. Also be aware that most insurance policies do not cover an owner’s or manager's discriminatory acts.

Remember that just because someone is a member of a protected class does not mean that you cannot deny them rental or evict them. It only becomes discrimination if you do the above because they are members of a protected class. So if you are denying a person rental or filing an eviction action against an individual for reasons other then their protected class status then you are not discriminating against them. For example, if a person does not meet your screening criteria because they have been evicted in the past, have no prior rental history, or their gross monthly income is not 3 times the monthly rent (or some other legal screening criteria that you have in place) then it is not discrimination to deny that person rental even though they may also be a member of a protected class.

CCAP LEGISLATION INTRODUCED YESTERDAY

State Rep. Marlin Schneider has introduced his newest piece of legislation yesterday - Assembly Bill 340. Schneider's newest bill will once again interfere with a landlord's ability to properly screen his/her applicants through CCAP.

First, AB-340 will require most users of CCAP to register and pay an annual fee. Second, It will also require you to inform an applicant if you denied them rental as a result of information you obtained from CCAP and if you fail to do so you can be fined $1,000. Finally, and what bothers me most, is that no pending cases (criminal or civil) will appear on CCAP until after the case has been concluded. So if the person that just applied to rent from you is doing so becasue their current landlord recently filed an eviction against them --- you will not be able to learn this from CCAP --- until it may be too late. You also may not learn until after you have already accepted them as a tenant, that a recent applicant was just charged with the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance.

You can read AB-340 in its entirety here.

If you would like to read my earlier blog posts on this topic go here and here.

No matter what you do I hope that you will consider contacting both your state representative and state senator and express your strong opposition to this piece of legislation.

Article and Video Regarding Recent Seminar On Advising and Defending Property Owners in Nuisance Actions

On May 7, 2009 I spoke at the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual Convention. I was asked to speak at the Government Lawyer Division's seminar that focused on the topic of neighborhoods and nuisance properties. Specifically I was asked to speak on advising and defending property owners that have nuisance properties.

The State Bar recently published a nice article summarizing my seminar presentation which was published through its online Inside Track newsletter. A link to the article and a short video of my presentation on the topic of written screening criteria is below.

House rules: Landlords knowledgeable of tenancy laws improves condition of rental properties, neighborhoods (from wisbar.org)

Landlord accountability: Advising and defending the property owner

July 1, 2009 -- In this video clip, Milwaukee attorney Tristan Pettit explains the importance of the property owner's consistent use of written criteria when screening potential tenants. Pettit spoke at the Government Lawyers Division program at the State Bar Annual Convention in May. (from wisbar.org)

CCAP: SCREENING TOOL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN!

I have had the opportunity to review the newly proposed legislation, authored by State. Representative Marlin Schneider (Wisconsin Rapids), that will affect landlords' use of CCAP when screening rental applicants. This legislation has not yet been officially introduced so there is no link to it available on the web. Currently Rep. Schneider is sending it around attempting to find others who are willing to co-sponsor it with him.

First, the bill would require that no information can be added to CCAP until after there is a finding of guilt in a criminal matter, finding of liability in a civil matter, an order for eviction in an eviction action, or the issuance of a restraining order or injunction.

If this legislation becomes law, landlords will be put at a huge disadvantage during the screening process. If the applicant is currently being evicted by his/her landlord that information would not be displayed on CCAP. I personally feel that th most important piece of information that I want to know about somebody that is applying to rent from me is if they are currently being evicted. The time that it takes to obtain a judgment of eviction often takes up to 1 month or more - as you need to wait for the 5 or 14 day notice to expire, then it takes approximately 2 weeks before you can get into court for the initial appearance, and then if the tenant contests the eviction the trial could be scheduled out as far as 1 week from the date of the initial appearance - and that does not even account for the court time (or backlog) to enter the information into CCAP.

The same would apply to collection lawsuits. If the tenant is currently being sued by his/her landlord for damage to the rental property (not part of an eviction action) or any other person or business that is owed money by the tenant, this information would not show up on CCAP until after a judgment was rendered. Collection lawsuits (even in the small claims division) can easily take 6 months or more to come to a conclusion.

Most of us review an application, complete a background search, and make a decision to rent to an applicant in a few days to 1 week. In fact, the regulations regarding earnest money (ATCP 134.05) require a landlord to make that decision by the end of the 3^rd business day or else they must return the earnest money to the applicant. So if this law is passed landlords will not be privy to important information that is needed in order to make an intelligent decision as to whether an applicant should become a tenant. Seeing no current eviction or lawsuits pending against the applicant, a landlord may accept the applicant and enter into a rental agreement with them only to find out a few weeks or months later that their new tenant was evicted or sued by their prior landlord.

Second, the new bill also will require landlords to pay an annual fee of $10 to use CCAP. This fee would not be charged to judges, attorneys, court personnel, law enforcement personnel, and journalists. Even more troublesome however is that the Director of State Courts would also be required to register all users of CCAP and also record any and all searches that they perform using CCAP. So there would be a record of what searches you performed on CCAP that could possibly be used against you if it was determined that you discriminated against an applicant (see the paragraph below for such a scenario).

Third, this bill would also require that any landlord that uses CCAP as part of their background search on an applicant, must tell the applicant, if their application is denied, that CCAP was used in part in making the decision to deny them. Failure to inform the applicant of this may cause the landlord to be fined $1,000. Remember the requirement that the searches of all CCAP users be recorded that I mentioned in the prior paragraph? Maybe that same search record could be used against you if you did not advise the applicant that you used CCAP as part of your background search prior to denying them. If this is a possibility then landlords will need to document in writing that they did advise the applicant that they used CCAP to vet them or else risk the $1,000 fine.

Finally, under the bill, any person that currently has information isted on CCAP that didn't result in a finding of guilt in a criminal matter, liability in a civil matter, an order for eviction, or the issuance of a restraining order of injunction, can request that the information be removed from CCAP. So under this law, past information that was available on CCAP can now disappear.

Essentially, this will allow any tenant that was sued for eviction in the past but who had his/her eviction dismissed pursuant to a stipulation (which are often forced upon landlords in Milwaukee County) can be removed from CCAP. Oftentimes, a landlord will agree to dismiss an eviction against a tenant in exchange for the tenant agreeing to vacate the property by a date certain. Landlords do this because it will avoid the need for an eviction trial as well as the need to take additional time off of work or pay additional fees to a lawyer for a trial. It is understandable why a landlord may agree to a stipulated dismissal but if this new legislation is passed documentation showing that an eviction was even filed may be removed from CCAP. Landlords will need to seriously need to reconsider entering into stipulated dismissals because by doing so they will be hurting other landlords who may inadvertently rent individuals that were sued for eviction but for which no record exists on CCAP.

REP. SCHNEIDER IS ATTACKING CCAP AGAIN

State Representative Marlin Schneider from Wisconsin Rapids is up to it again. I just received word that Marlin Schneider has circulated a proposed bill (LRB 2267/3) which would require users of the Consolidated Court Automation Program, better known as CCAP, to pay an annual fee to use this computerized open records management system.

Even worse, Schneider's legislation proposes that no legal court proceeding be posted on CCAP until after there has been a determination of guilt (in criminal actions) or liability (in civil action).

CCAP is the single most important screening tools for landlords in Wisconsin in my opinion.

As many of you know, back in 2008, Mr. Schneider -- who does not like CCAP or the concept of open records in general and feels that both are deteriorating one's privacy rights -- drafted a proposed bill that would have prevented landlords and many other groups (except for a select few like law enforcement and the court system) from being able to use CCAP. That legislation was killed.

Then earlier this year, upset at his loss the year before, Mr. Schneider attempted to attack CCAP from a different angle when he tried to make people who have been arrested or convicted of a crime protected classes that could not be discriminated against in housing. Mr. Schneider voluntarily withdrew that bill saying that it was not what he expected it to be. This withdrawl came after a mass campaign by the AASEW to get landlords to write to their legislators and demand that they not support the bill.

Now we have this. When oh when will Mr. Schneider retire?

As I learn more about this issue I will post it to this blog.