Public Hearing on AB 340 (Proposal to Restrict CCAP Access and Information) to Be Held on October 1, 2009 in Madison

For those of you following my blog, you are well aware of my thoughts on State Rep. Marlin Schneider's new legislative proposal to restrict access to and limiting information contained on CCAP (Consolidated Cort Automation Programs). Schneider's proposed legislation is referred to as AB (Assembly Bill) 340.

In fact, Patrick McIlheran of the Milwaukee Jornal Sentinel just wrote an article that addressed how AB 340 will hurt landlords.

AB 340 is currently in the Committee on Criminal Justice and that committee has just announced that a public hearing on AB 340 will be held on Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 10:15 am at 328 Northwest of the State Capitol Building in Madison.

If you can attend this hearing please consider doing so. If you are unable to attend then please be sure and voice your opinion on this proposal to your state representative and/or senator and the members of the Committe on Criminal Justice.

We landlords will be at a great loss if we lose our access to CCAP or are only able to receive certain information from CCAP.

WTMJ News Radio Discusses Proposed Legislation That Will Restrict Access To and Limit Information Contained on CCAP on Charlie Sykes Radio Show

Thursday, September 17, 2009 was quite a good PR day for landlords. Not only did the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel commentator Pat McIlheran publish a very good article criticizing the state and the city of Milwaukee for not treating landlords like second class citizens but later that same morning Charlie Sykes spent a good amount of time discussing something near and dear to a landlord's heart -- CCAP

Sykes spent a large portion of his final hour discussing State. Rep. Marlin's Schneider's latest attempt to restrict access to CCAP and to limit the information contained on CCAP.

If you would like to listen to or download the podcast of Sykes' discussion of this topic click here and then click on the entry entitled "Sykes Show part 3 - Thursday 9/17/09"

"Landlords Feel The Loathing" - Accurate Article On Landlords' Plight Published in Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Today

Several weeks ago I received a telephone call from Journal Sentinel reporter Patrick McIlheran. Mr. McIlheran told me that someone had referred him to my blog and after reading some of the posts that he wanted to speak with me as he was in the process of putting together a piece about how the state and the city seem to make the business of landlording more and more difficult. I was more than happy to assist Mr. McIlheran as this topic comes up regularly during my interactions with clients, and at the the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin meeting. Truth be told, most business - not just rental property owners - wonder why the city makes doing business here so difficult and unappealing.

After speaking with Mr. McIlheran, I referred him to a colleague of mine, Tim Ballering, owner of Affordable Rental Associates, LLC and past president of the AASEW. Tim owns and manages hundreds of units in Milwaukee and has been a landlord almost as long as I have been alive (just kidding Tim ; ). It goes without saying that Tim could give Mr. McIlheran some necessary background and perspective that I could not.

Mr. McIlheran's piece entitled "Landlords Feel The Loating" was published in today's paper. You can also read it online at JSOnline.

It is a very good article. Please be sure to take the time to read the article and to email or call Mr. McIlheran and thank him for taking the time to present an accurate story on landlord's present plight. In light of the soon to be proposed Milwaukee ordinance that will require landlords to submit to mandatory inspections of the interior of their rental units, Ms. McIlheran's article could not be more timely.

DON'T MISS AASEW'S 10th ANNUAL LANDLORD TRADESHOW THIS WEDNESDAY (9-16-09)

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW) is hosting its 10th Annual Tradeshow this Wednesday, September 16, 2009, from 12 noon - 7 pm. If you are a rental propertyowner, manager or investor you will not want to miss this FREE tradeshow

It will be held at Serb Hall which is located at 5101 W. Oklanhoma Avenue.

The admission is FREE.

Food and snacks will be offerred.

Many vendors that support the rental housing industry will be on hand to answer your questions, such as Wisconsin Legal Blank Co.,, Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc., Oak Creek Plumbing, Inc. and many more.

There will also be many seminars on topics such as: the new lead paint renovation rules, causes for eviction and notices terminating tenancy, how to collect tenant debt, nuisance properties, execution of writs of assistance (eviction) by the Sheriff, and how to benefit from 1031 exchanges and more. The seminars will be followed by a Town Hall Meeting (no, it won't be about health care) in which 3 members of the industry will answer your questions.

For more information and details please go to www.LandlordTradeShow.com

Why Milwaukee's Mandatory Rental Inspection Program (a.k.a. "Landlord Licensing") Is Not Needed and Is A Bad Idea.

Here are a few of the reasons why the City of Milwaukee's soon-to-be proposed ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections (a.k.a. "Landlord Licensing") should not be passed.

For more background information on this proposed new ordinance please read my earlier post entitled " Milwaukee To Propose Landlord Licensing and Mandatory Interior Inspections of Rental Property."

There Are Better Ways To Spend Milwaukee’s Limited Money - The city of Milwaukee has no money and as such the city is threatening to close libraries, not hire additional police officers, not pay overtime to police officers, cut back on the number of firemen assigned to each ladder company. Under this new ordinance the city will spend money which would be better spent on more police officers and other safety issues rather than hiring more building inspectors.

Tenant’s Right to Privacy – Under this new ordinance rental properties would be subject to search by building inspectors. Tenants will have building inspectors walking through their apartments and looking at everything. This is unnecessary and intrusive. It should be the tenant’s decision to call the inspector if the landlord has failed to make a repair. Tenants’ right to privacy in their own home is a basic American right.

Increased Cost of Rent for Tenants – The current rental property owner already pays ever-increasing real estate taxes and municipal fees. Under this proposed ordinance rental property owners will have to pay a fee to the city for being a landlord – possibly having to pay a fee per each rental unit owned. Landlords will not be able to absorb that additional cost, especially when they are barely making ends meet in today’s tough economic times. As a result the additional charges for this program to landlords will most likely be passed on to tenant living in those rental properties.

Landlord Licensing Will Cause More Harm Than Good – A study conducted in 2003 by the LaFollette Institute for the City of Milwaukee, concluded that any form of landlord licensing would not work in Milwaukee. The study indicated that any benefits would be uncertain at best and at worst would have negative effects on the housing market and the availability of affordable housing. It said that any such program would be expensive and would cause more problems than it would solve. To read the entire study click here.

Denying An Owner The Right To Rent Out His/Her Property Is Too Great A Power To Give a Building Inspector – Under the new program the city will have the ability to deny a rental property owner a certificate of compliance if the property does not pass muster. Without the certificate of compliance the landlord will not be allowed to rent out his property. This is too great of a power to give a city bureaucrat. Even nuisance properties require that a lawsuit be filed and that a court order closure of that property before the owner is prevented from renting it out. Under this ordinance a building code inspector would be able to close down a rental property for infractions much less severe then those that are required to close down a nuisance property. A city building inspector could use this power for improper reasons to penalize a landlord who is out of favor with City Hall. In other cities and in Milwaukee there have been “rogue” inspectors who abuse their authority. To read about such examples click here. And here. And here.

The Foreclosure Crisis Is Putting Property Owners Under Stress – With falling rents and declining property values due to foreclosures – and the financial difficulties due to unemployment etc. – the rental housing market is severely stressed. This proposed licensing program will discourage further investment. It will hurt rental owners, tenants, and even neighborhood home owners as rental units become “board-ups.”

Rental Property Owners Are Already Over-Regulated – With all of the regulations imposed on rental property owners you need to be a lawyer in order to sort through them all and understand them. There are hundreds of laws and regulations imposed by the federal government (EPA, HUD) the state (Department of Commerce, Consumer Protections, Wisconsin Statutes etc,. and the various municipalities (Building Inspector, Health Department, Public Works). More regulations of rental property owners and their rental properties are nor necessary nor are they desirable.

Please refer to www.rentalinspectionprogram.com for more information on this topic.

Milwaukee to Propose Landlord Licensing and Mandatory Interior Inspections of Rental Property

The city of Milwaukee is planning on introducing a new ordinance that will require rental property owners in certain parts of the city to license their rental properties and submit to mandatory interior inspections by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS).

Many of the AASEW board members have been having regular monthly meetings with the new DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg. During a recent meeting Mr. Dahlberg informed us that in the near future he will be pushing for some form of residential rental inspection program (a.k.a "Landlord Licensing") for portions of the city. During a meeting with Alderman Bob Donovan it was confirmed that this program was in the works and that the city's forthcoming budget already has money earmarked for the program.

Under this program DNS would target certain areas of the city which they consider to be "blighted" or which will soon become "blighted" if something is not done. Other factors that would be considered in determining what areas to target would be the age of the housing stock, the percentage of rental units to owner occupied properties, and the history of complaints in the neighborhood. Mr. Dahlberg indicated that the area of the city that would most likely be addressed first would be the east side near UWM due to the large number of illegally converted dwelling units and poorly maintained properties.

The goal of the program would allegedly be for the owners and the city building inspectors to work together to better the rental housing stock with the building inspectors becoming a resource for rental property owners.

While the specific details were not provided to me, any proposed program will most certainly contain provisions such as the following:

- A requirement that all rental property owners in the targeted area pay a fee to the city for each unit that they own.

- A requirement that rental property owners allow the city building inspectors to conduct mandatory inspections of the interiors of each of their rental properties that are located within the targeted area.

- If no code violations are found then the rental property would receive a certificate of code compliance which would allow the owner to rent out the unit for a period of time until the next mandatory interior inspection would be required.

- If code violations were to be found in the rental property then the owner would be denied a certificate of code compliance (thus preventing the unit from being rented) until the violations were corrected. Depending on the the number and severity of the violations, the rental property owner would be required to submit to an increased number of interior inspections during the ensuing months until the city would determine that the rental property was safe.

While this new program would only focus on the UWM area initially, other areas of town were also mentioned (the north side of Milwaukee for instance) as being targeted eventually. It is fairly obvious that the end goal would be to have all rental properties within the city under this program.

I personally am not in favor of this program and I can't imagine that many landlords would be. If passed this new ordinance will be yet another regulation on rental property owners - a group that is already overly regulated. I can't imagine that tenants are going to enjoy this invasion of their privacy either. Not to mention that the additional costs to landlords will most likely be passed on to the tenant by increased rents. I also personally have difficulty with the fact that the city regularly threatens to cut the number of police, refuse overtime for police, eliminate the number of firemen at ladder companies, and close libraries, but yet they are willing to provide additional money for the hiring of more building inspectors.

While the alleged goal of this residential rental recording program is to improve the quality of the housing stock in the city I can't help but think that it will also be a source of revenue for a city that allegedly is broke.

This proposed ordinance will be addressed in more detail in my future posts.

To read why this program is not a good idea click here.

To read the text of a study conducted by the LaFollette Institute in 2002 on whether or not Landlord Licensing should be implemented in Milwaukee click here. To read a summary of the the study concluding that Landlord Licensing would casue more harm then good if implemented in Milwaukee click here.

For more information go to www.rentalinspectionprogram.com

MILWAUKEE CO. SMALL CLAIMS COURT'S NEW POLICY REGARDING WHO MAY APPEAR IN COURT ON BEHALF OF A LLC WENT INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1st.

I was attending the regular monthly meeting of Milwauke RING (Real Estate Investors Networking Group) last night and during the "open mic" portion of the meeting I reminded everyone that Milwaukee County Small Claims Court's new policy regarding who may appear in court (i.e. sign court documents and appear in court) went into effect yesterday, September 1, 2009. As I was walking back to my seat two people asked me what that would mean. After the meeting several landlords that own a large number of rental properties also approached me and said they had never heard of this new policy.

Because of this major change and the fact that many people either are not aware of it or do not understand the change I thought it would be prudent to explain what this new policy is before some unsuspecting landlord or management company ends up having their eviction lawsuit dismissed.

For the last month or so the Court Commisioners in Milwaukee County Small Claims Court have been talking to court regulars about the change as well as handing out flyers and posting those flyers on the tables in the courtroom and in the Clerk of Courts Office. Essentially the flyers say:

PLEASE NOTE

In small claims eviction cases, you may only sign complaints (and summons) and appear in court on behalf of a property owner if you are one of the following:

1. The property owner (if the property is not owned by a corporation/limited liability corporation).

2. A full-time employee of the property owner.

3. An attorney.

Employess of management companies or other outside service providers many not sign complaints (or summons)or appear on behalf of property owners.

The biggest group that this new policy will effect is those that own their rental properties in a LLC. For personal liability protection it is encouraged that owners of rental properties transfer ownership to a LLC. However, under this new policy LLC's will only be able to appear in court by either (1) an attorney or a (2) full-time employee of the LLC (this must be supported with evidence such as W2's). Even if you are the sole member of the LLC you will not be able to appear in court on it's behalf unless that LLC pays you a full-time salary. Since most landlords are not a full time employee of their LLC, this means that they will be forced to hire an attorney to handle their evictions in Milwaukee County.

I am not sure exactly what has brought about this change. And no, awyers did not lobby the court for this change (at least this one didn't). There is a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case that says that corporations (becasue they are a separate legal entity distinct from an individual person) may only appear in large claims cases by an attorney in Wisconsin. LLC's are also separate business entities distinct from the individual (and that is why placing your rental properties in a LLC is a great way to protect your personal assets). So it is my guess that Milwaukee County has decided to extend this same reasoning to LLC's. What precipitated that, I do not know.

Whether you agree with it or not is really not important any longer. The court commissioners are behind this policy and it has the support of the current small claims judge as well. If you do not want your eviction tossed out of court you must decide how you are going to comply with this new policy.

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.