Wisc. Legal Blank Co.'s New & Improved Residential Rental Agreement Is Now Available.

I wanted to alert anyone that is currently using the Residential Rental Agreement that is sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co, Inc. (and even those of you who don't : ) that the new and improved version is now available ans is being sold at WLB.

I completed the revisions to the updated Agreement last week. The new version indicates a revision date of 1/4/10 whereas the prior version had a revision date of 1/31/07.

Some of the changes include:

1. I retitled the document "Residential Rental Agreement" -- believe it or not I have seen this document improperly used for commercial properties (Note: I will be drafting a form Commercial Lease in the ensuing months for WLB).

2. I attempted (and think that I succeeded) in removing all legalese from the Agreement in order to make it more understandable for everyone. So you no longer need to read "heretofore" "therein" "hereof" and wonder to yourself "what the heck does that mean?"

3. I eliminated some of the "fill in the blank" sections that were causing confusion for some landlords and property managers. The eliminated sections were not really necessary anyways - so they're outta there.

4. I retitled the "Guarantee" section to "Co-Signer / Guarantor" is an attempt to make it more clear that landlords/managers do not need to have the resident/tenant sign this section. This section need only be signed by individuals (other than the tenant) that are guaranteeing that the tenant will meet all of the conditions in the Agreement. For example: a parent would sign as a co-signer/gurantor for a student tenant that is not employed and/or does not have sufficient credit.

5. I added a sentence that states that if the Landlord provides the Tenant with an Inspection Checklist (a.k.a. "Check-In/Check-Out" form) and the Tenant fails to return it to the Landlord within seven days after the start of the tenancy, that the Tenant will be considered to have accepted the Premises without any exceptions."

6. I deleted the fill in the blank lines relating to "Special Provisions" relating to pets. The purpose for doing this is to alert landlords that there is a separate docuement entitled "Pet Agreement" that they should be using if they are allowing tenants to keep pets -- rather then trying to cram all of that info into 2 lines on the Rental Agreement." By being forced -- "forced" may be too strong of a word -- to use the Pet Agreement a landlord will also notice (on the Pet Agreement form) that s/he may charge the tenant a refundable pet fee and/or a non-refundable pet fee and it will also make the landlord clearly define the specific pet that is being allowed to reside at the Premises.

7. I clarified the section that dealt with the type of notice that a tenant must provide the Landlord prior to vacting. The goal was to make this notice process more understandable for the tenant (and therefore less of a headache for landlords). This revised section will also serve as a default provision should the landlord fail to include another (i.e. longer) notice provision for the tenant. The section includes both a notice provision for month to month tenants and tenants that are under a lease for term.

8. I added a section regarding abandoned personal property. The section states that any personal property that is left at the Premises after the Tenant has vacated will be considered to have no value and to have been abandoned by the Tenant and therefore it may be disposed of by the Landlord, unless the Tenant notifies the Landlord otherwise - in writing - prior to vacating.

9. I added a new provision regarding a tenant's responsibility for maintaining and paying for utilities through the end of theiir tenancy or until the last day that the tenant is responsible for paying rent.

10. I included a new section that defines late fees, security deposits, utility charges and any other penalty or fee set forth in the Agreement as "rent" - much like is done in commercial leases.

11. I added a provision stating tha the landlord/manager represents that there are no code violations or other conditions affecting the habitability of the Premises unless indicated otherwise in writing.

12. I added a new section that clarifies who will be responsible for any extermination costs of the Tenant's unit and under what circumstances.

13. I included a provision recommending that all Tenants purchase renter's insurance and explaining why this is reccomended.

14. I removed the Consent to Assignment or Sub-Lease section. I removed this section to reinforce the fact that landlords of residential rental properties would be better protected by entering into a new Rental Agreement (and other rental documents) with a new individual that moves into the Premises after a prior tenant was evicted or vacated the unit, rather then to just assigning or sub-leasing the Premises and continuing to use the old tenant's rental documents. While this will result in more paperwork for the landlord, the protections that it will provide more than outweigh the additional paper. A Landlord in this situation should have the new tenant sign all new rental documents especially a new Lead-Based Paint Disclosure statement (and provide the new tenant with a new EPA pamphlet) and have the new tenant sign and/or initial a new Nonstandard Rental Provisions document rather then just relying on the old documents that the prior tenant signed. Trust me, if you end up in a court battle (i.e. eviction lawsuit or defending a claim that you violated ATCP 134) or facing the wrath of the EPA, you will be thankful that you used the extra paper.

15. Finally, I cleaned up all of the mispellings, improper grammar, and other typos -- at least I think I did.

I would reccomend that you toss out any old versions of the Rental Agreement that you may have in your possession and the next time that you renew or rent out a rental unit that you use this new and improved Residential Rental Agreement form.

CCAP Bill Amended to Allow Landlords Full Access; Possibly Going to Assembly for Vote

As many of you know who have been following my updates on the ever evolving attempts by Marlin Schneider to restrict access to CCAP - Mr. Schneider has again amended his proposed bill. The bill is now called Assembly Bill 663 but it is practically the same as the amended AB 340. Why the change in the bill number I have not a clue.

AB 663 was voted on by the State Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

Prior to voting on the bill, several amendments were made. The major amendment was to was to include real estate brokers and salespeople, bankers and other financial agents, landlords, and those working in the title industry, to the list of the "select few" who would be able to access CCAP in its entirety. Everyone else would still be limited to the restricted version of CCAP which would exclude information on pending cases and cases in which the defendant was acquitted or the lawsuit was dismissed.

Even with this major changes, AB 663 barely made it out of committee. The committee was deadlocked at 3 to 3. Voting for the bill was Rep Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Leon Black (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison). Voting against the proposed bill was Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison), Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomnowac) and Rep. Danield Knodl (R-Germantown). Two members of the committee were on vacation and therefore did not participate in the vote. The Chairperson of the committe, and bill c0-sponsor, Fred Kessler advanced the bill, without reccomendation, to the Assembly leaders who will now determine whether or not the Assembly as a whole will vote on it.

While it is great that landlords have now been added to the"chosen few" who are deemed worthy to have access to all open records in Wisconsin - this bill should still fail. Current President of the Wisconsin Apartment Association, John H. Fischer (also known as Dr. Rent, gave his personal opinion on the AASEWAdvisors list serv, earlier.

He stated, in part:

It is nice that the bill on CCAP was amended to include people like landlords and employers… but to be completely honest, now it has just gotten silly. He [Rep. MArlin Schneider] wanted this bill so landlords and employers didn’t use the CCAP records in a method that was illegal, but then he modifies the bill to include us…. So what exactly will it accomplish now? It has been watered down so far to have no real impact, so why even have it at all. In addition, how are they going to determine who is a landlord, who is an employer? Are we going to have to register? (Gee a statewide registration system for landlords, won't that make licensing something easy to do in the future).

In my personal opinion, the stance of the WAA should be similar to that of the Newspapers. Even though they were allowed full access under the original proposal, they still objected to it because there is something inherently wrong with making public records difficult for the public to have access to.

. . .

I think we still need to be opposed because once limitations are put in place, what is stopping from them from expanding those limitations in a future session. They can take away all of our rights at one time, or they can chip away piece by piece until they are all gone. Either way, the end game is the same.

My two cents….

I agree with John 100%.

This bill is barely holding on. It is on life support -- we need to put it out of its misery. Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel in his recent article on the topic indicates that Kessler himself, one of the bill's sponsors, said that it has a "slim" chance of passing. I would like to change that to NO chance of passing.

This is a very critical time. We must all contact our representatives in the state legislature and let them know that this bill should be defeated.

If you do not know the contact information for your representatives you can find that information here.

Oh yeah, and here is an article stating that Rep. Schneider is lying in an attempt to push his legislation limiting CCAP through the system. Good thing the AP caught him.

Did Your Tenant Write You A Worthless Check? Consider New Restitution Program

One of my earliest blog posts, back when I had just started Tristan's Landlord-Tenant Law Blog, was about the fact that the City of Milwaukee Police Department had a policy in place where they refused to investigate crimes in which a tenant made their rent payment with a worthless check or stopped payment on the check. Shortly thereafter I wrote about a new diversion program that was being created to assist landlords in such a situation.

I was attending the February monthly meeting for Milwaukee RING (Real Estate Investors Networking Group) this past Monday and they had a speaker from the company that is now running this new program. Mr. Rufus McNealy of Financial Crimes Services, LLC (FCS) spoke to us about the diversion/accountability program that is now in full effect.

Mr. McNealy handed out a very informative guide outlining the program and including the necessary applications to enter into the program.

With the current recession the District Attorney's Office says that they are receiving more and more complaints of people passing worthless checks. Due to limited funding, the DA's office cannot afford to prosecute all of these these crimes. So the DA's office and FCS partnered to try to get some of that money back for the victims -- and this includes landlords.

The goals of the program are:

1. Increase the amount of restitution returned to victims of bad checks.

2. Increase the accountability of all worthless check writers (regardless of the amount of the check).

3. Educate local merchants about more effective check acceptance procedures.

4. Reduce the risk of repeat worthless check activity through training.

There is no cost to any landlord that wishes to try this diversion program. All costs of the program are born by the worthless check writer.

The program will handle the following kinds of checks: NSF, Account Closed, Stop Payment, Refer to Maker, Business to Business, RENT checks, debit card charge backs, ACH (Automatic Clearing House) charge backs, ACH NSF's and electronic checks received in Milwaukee County that do not exceed $2,500.

The following types of checks will not be handled by the program: second-party checks, payroll checks, checks that are currently in collections with a collection agency or attorney, and promissory notes or any other situation in which there has been agreement to hold the check for deposit or credit extension.

The final two pages of the PDF that I have linked to above are the "Memorandum of Understanding" which the landlord would review, sign and return to FCS, and a Preliminary Worthless Check Report which the landlord should complete and send to the Milwaukee County DA Program. Hold on to these two pages . . . just in case you find yourself in a situation where this program can help you.

Once FCS receives the above info from the landlord the company will attempt to contact the person that passed the bad check. The criminal will then have the option of (1) entering into the program and paying restitution to the victim or (2) refuse to enter into the program in which case the matter will be sent for potential prosecution.

It is my understanding that FCS is also partnering with Racine County and Kenosha County in addition to Milwaukee County. FCS is not currently working with Waukesha County.

Those of you that are interested in learning more about this program may contact Mr. McNealy at (414) 393-9385 or visit his company's website at www.financialcrimes.net

The AASEW has also schedule Mr. McNealy to speak about this program at its May meeting.

LANDLORD BOOT CAMP: Everything You Need To Know About Residential Landlord-Tenant Law in WI

I will be presenting an all-day seminar on residential landlord tenant law in Wisconsin for the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW). The seminar is entitled "Landlord Boot Camp" and will take place on Saturday, February 27, 2010 from approx. 8:30 am - 5 pm at the Clarion Hotel located at 5311 S. Howell Avenue in Milwaukee.

The cost will be $159 for AASEW members and $259 for non-members. You will receive a 100 page plus manual. I have given a similar seminar to lawyers, landlords, and property managers over 25 times during the past few years and the organizations that have sponsored these seminars typically charge between $300-$400. This is your opportunity to learn all of the same information at a much discounted price.

I will cover pretty much anything and everything that you need to know about residential Landlord Tenant law in Wisconsin, including:

1. How to properly screen prospective tenants

2. How to draft written screening criteria to assist you in the selection process

3. How to comply with both federal and state Fair Housing laws including how to comply with "reasonable modifications" and "reasonable accomodations" requests

4. How to legally reject an applicant

5. What rental documents you should be using and why

6. When you should be using a 5-day notice versus a 14-day notice, 28-day notice, or 30-day notice and how to properly serve the notice on your tenant

7. Everything you wanted to know (and probably even more than you wanted to know) about the Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134) and how to avoid having to pay double damages to your tenant for breaching ATCP 134

8. When you are legally allowed to enter your tenant's apartment

9. How to properly draft an eviction summons and complaint

10. What to do to keep the commissioner from dismissing your eviction suit

11. What you can legally deduct from a security deposit

12. How to properly draft a security deposit transmittal / 21 day letter

13. How to handle pet damage

14. What to do with a tenant's abandoned property and how this may affect whether or not you file an eviction suit

15. How to pursue your ex-tenant for damages to your rental property and past due rent (and whether it is even worth it to do so)

. . . and much more.

Hope to see you there.

Call Paulette at (414) 276-7378 or email her at paulette@apartmentassoc.org to reserve your seat.

Milwaukee's New Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Is Here

I need to apologize. I have spent much of my time these last several months following and providing information about the city of Milwaukee's new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance and as such I have inadvertantly failed to let everyone know about another of Milwaukee's new ordinances that will affect rental property owners.

I was talking with a client of mine last week prior to the 1:30 pm eviction return calandar in small claims court and he mentioned that the city recently served him with notice that he is in violation of the city's new Vacant Building Registration ordinance. He was told that his rental property was vacant and that he didn't register the property with the city as required and that he must now open his property up for an interior inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS). Interesting twist is that my client's rental property is not vacant nor has it ever been vacant. The unit is occupied by a tenant under a valid written rental agreement.

On January 1, 2010, Milwaukee's new Vacant Building Registration ordinance went into effect. Essentially the ordinance states that the owner of any building that is vacant for more than 30 days must register the property with DNS and submit to a mandatory - warrantless - interior inspection of the rental property. The ordinance also requires the owner to secure the building, maintanin the lot, exterior of the property, and interior of the property during the time that it is vacant.

Upon first glance this seems like a reasonable ordinance. A valiant attempt by the city to insure that vacant buildings do not become dilapidated and attract criminal activity, injure individuals, or further depress Milwaukee's neighborhoods. I have no problem with that. Upon closer review of the ordinance however you will note the many requirements -- similar to the city's Residential Rental Certificate ordinance -- that are open to multiple interpretations and therfore open to abuse, which in the end, can and most likely will, be used to the detriment of rental property owners.

I will not attempt to explain or detail the entire Vacant Building Registration ordinance as it is over 6 pages long. I would like to touch on some key parts of the ordinance and note some concerns.

This new ordinance applies to all residential and commercial properties that have been vacant for more than 30 days. There are some exceptions. It does not apply to single family homes or owner-occupied duplexes (as long as the owner has resided in the duplex at least 3 of the last 9 months and the owner intends to continue living in the duplex). Also excluded from the ordinance are condominiums and rental units as long as their vacancy rate does not exceed 95%. Also excluded is property that is currently in the foreclosure process and property that is actively being renovated.

This ordinance will apply to your rental whether or not you are actively showing the property to prospective renters and regardless of the condition of the property. So within 30 days of the property becoming vacant you must fill out a city application and file it with DNS. Additionally you must allow DNS to conduct an interior inspection. If the city finds any violations you will be cited.

Your intial application will be good for a period of 6 months and will cost you nothing (assuming the city does not cite you for any violations). If your property remains vacant for more than 6 months then you must reapply and pay a $250 fee. If DNS determines, at the time of renewal, that your property is not compliant then the fee will increase to $500. If your property continues to be in violation at the time of any subsequent renewals then you may be charged a fee (in increasing increments of $250) up to a maximum of $1,000. If you don't pay the fees they will be assessed against the real estate as a "special charge."

During the inspection, DNS will see if your property meets their minimum requirements. You can read a summary of those requirements at DNS' webpage dedicated to this new program.

Just as with the Residential Rental Certificate ordianance, DNS has the unfettered ability to draft and apply rules and regulations which are not required to be incorporated into the ordinance. These rules and regulations can change at any time and do not have to be published.

Let me just provide you with two situations that clearly fall under the purview of this new ordinance but which I feel should not require any city involvement whatsoever. By no means are these the only two problematice examples that I foresee -- there are many.

First, assume that you own a duplex and you currently have a tenant in the lower unit but because the upper tenant just broke the lease you upper unit is empty. The upper unit is in pretty good shape but requires repainting and some minor repairs to get the unit into move-in condition for the next tenant. Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time - you are working late and on weekends. While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time. You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days. Under the new ordinance you now have a "vacant building" and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example has actually happened to me on several occassions. I was in the process of trying to locate a new tenant for the lower portion of my duplex. Just as the city suggests, I have written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become my tenant. My screening criteria is quite stringent. I follow the adage that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any "warm body" as a tenant. Because I also work a full-time job, I am not free to show the property to interested renters every day. As a result of both my stringent criteria and my schedule, my lower duplex remains vacant for over 30 days. Under Milwaukee's new ordinance I would need to register my duplex with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect my property.

NOTE: I have spoken with DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg and confirmed that my above examples (which I have crossed out) are inaccurate. If you have a duplex and only 1 unit is vacant then you do not fall under the purview of the new ordinance. You would only fall under the purview of the new ordinance if both units of the duplex were vacant for 30 days -- as you would now have more than a 95% vacant property. So I have had to revise my examples.

First, assume that you own a single family home that you operate as a rental property and your tenant just broke his/her lease and as such the property is now vacant. The property will need a little bit of work (minor repairs and some painting) before you can turn it over. Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time - you are working late and on weekends. While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time. You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days. Under the new ordinance you now have a "vacant building" and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example happens to many of my clients that have stringent screening criteria that applicants must meet before they can become tenants. They are in the process of renting out a single family rental unit or both units of a duplex. Just as the city reccomends they use a written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become a tenant. Following the adage that I often teach at my seminars, that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any "warm body" as a tenant, my clients often have periods in which their rental units are vacant. Sometimes becasue my clients work a full-time job outside of being a landlord, they not free to show the property to interested renters every day. As a result of both their stringent screening criteria and their busy schedules, their single famuly rental or both units of their duplex remain vacant for over 30 days. Under Milwaukee's new ordinance they would need to register their rentals with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect their property.

I suppose things could be worse. You could be standing in my client's shoes - the guy I mentioned earlier -- and have just been served with a notice from the city that you are in violation of its Vacant Building Recording ordinance. My client is now placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether to ignore the city's notice and risk the possibility of a fine and the future wrath of DNS or capitulating to the city and allowing it to inspect his unit despite the fact that it is occupied by a tenant and the city has no legal right to set foot in his rental property. What would you do?

City of Milwaukee's Rental Rehab Program Offers Investors Funds to Rehabilitate Foreclosed Properties

In an effort to rid itself of the many abandoned and foreclosed properties throughout the city, Milwaukee's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Rental Rehab Program will provide investors and landlords with financial assistance to rehabilitate foreclosed homes.

According to the flyer that I was given, responsible investor owners and landlords who purchase foreclosed homes in the city of Milwaukee may be eligible for forgivable loans of up to $17,500 per unit (or $35,00 for a duplex) to assist them with repairs to the property. The funds are made available on a matching funds basis.

The city will be holding an informational seminar on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 from 3:30 - 4:30 pm at the Department of City Development located at 809 N. Broadway in the 1st floor boardroom.

The seminar will provide attendees with additional details as to the program requirements and rehabilitation specifications.

It is requested that all attendees pre-register by sending an email to NSPinfo@Milwaukee.gov.

Additional information on the program can be found at the www.MilwaukeeHousingHelp.org

What May A Wisconsin Landlord Legally Deduct From A Tenant’s Security Deposit?

I have received many calls from both landlords and managers over the years asking me if they are legally allowed to deduct X, Y, or Z from a tenant’s security deposit. I fielded such a question just last week – sounds like a good topic for a blog post.

Wisconsin Administrative Code, ATCP 134.06(3) states that a landlord may deduct from a tenant’s security deposit for the following:

1. Damage, waste, or neglect of the unit

2. Unpaid rent

3. Unpaid utilities for which the tenant is responsible

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

5. Unpaid mobile home parking fees which a local unit of government has assessed against the tenant (to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant’s nonpayment), and

6. Other reasons as set forth in a document entitled "Nonstandard Rental Provisions."

For the majority of landlords and managers out there, items #4 and #5 are not often applicable, so I will focus my attention on the remaining items.

Damage, Waste or Neglect: There is no bright line rule or definition of what constitutes damage, waste, or neglect. This is determined on a case-by-case basis and each court commissioner or judge may have a different view on the topic. The best way to prove that a tenant damaged, wasted or neglected your rental property is to (1) use a "Check-In Check-Out" form and (2) take lots of photographs.

If you want to hold a tenant responsible for damage that they caused to your rental unit then you must first demonstrate that the damage was not pre-existing. To do this you should take photos of the entire rental unit prior to a tenant moving in. You should also complete a Check-In form yourself prior to the tenant moving in. Essentially a Check-In form lists the various rooms and areas of the rental unit and provides space for you to note any damage or problems. Once the tenant has moved in you should then provide the tenant with a blank Check-In form and ask them to complete it fully, date it, and sign it and then return it to you promptly.

Upon receipt of the tenant’s completed Check-In form you should compare it to the one that you completed earlier. If there are major differences between the two you should address this immediately with your tenant. Oftentimes the discrepancy will be due to the tenant causing damages during the move-in process.

If the tenant fails to return the Check-In form then a landlord should document this in the tenant’s file. If there is a dispute at a later date, the landlord will now have proof (a contemporaneous document) demonstrating that s/he did provide the tenant with the form and that the tenant, for whatever reason, chose not to complete it.

After your tenant moves out of the unit you should take the time to fully inspect the unit and take photographs of any and all damage, waste, or neglect that you see. Digital cameras (and some of the better phones which include cameras) are great for this purpose. Be sure and use the time/date stamp function if you have it. For those of you that are partial to using a camcorder to record the condition of the rental unit instead of photographs, I would caution you that most commissioners do not have the time or inclination to view a 20 minute tape of you walking around the apartment. Additionally, landlords that I have represented that have opted to videotape the move-out condition of the unit often make inappropriate statements while they are taping which if heard by the judge or commissioner could hamper your case. Furthermore, most courts do not supply the playback equipment needed to view a recording. So unless you want to haul around a VCR and television ("old school") or a digital camcorder and possibly a computer ("new school") - stick to photos.

After the landlord has inspected the unit and taken photos s/he should also complete the Check-Out portion of the Check-In Check-Out form. By doing so, the landlord will now have a "before and after" view of the rental property in one single document to submit as an exhibit in court should it become necessary.

By having photos taken before the tenant moved in, photos taken after the tenant moved out, a Check-In form completed prior to (or immediately after) the tenant moved in, and a Check-Out form completed after the tenant moved out, a landlord should be in pretty good shape to prove any tenant damage, waste, or neglect, if needed.

Do not forget that a landlord is not allowed to deduct for "normal wear and tear." This phrase has never been defined in any Wisconsin statute, administrative rule, or case. Once again, the determination of what is "normal wear and tear" is left to the discretion of the commissioner or judge and may vary from day to day (or even hour to hour - as I have had the misfortune of experiencing)

Unpaid Rent: Deducting unpaid rent from a security deposit would seem pretty straight forward but that is not always the case. Prior to deducting unpaid rent from a tenant’s security deposit a landlord should be sure that s/he can prove what the monthly rent amount is. If you are using a written rental agreement that should do the trick. If you do not have a written rental agreement – a cardinal sin in the rental industry – then you will most likely need to provide proof of your tenant’s rent payment history to demonstrate what the monthly rental amount is.

The issue regarding deductions for rent payments often centers on the determination of when the tenant is no longer responsible for paying rent. This can arise in many different contexts.

One such context would be whether or not the tenant is still responsible for paying rent after they vacate the unit. Another relevant context would be whether or not the tenant is responsible for paying the full rental amount because of the poor condition of the property. Determining whether or not a tenant is responsible for rent in the above contexts (and the myriad of other situations) often depends on a number of factors such as: (1) was the rental agreement a lease for a specific term, (2) did the tenant leave prior to the ending of the term, (2) did the tenant provide the landlord with proper notice of their intent to vacate, (3) was the rental unit uninhabitable, (4) was there sufficient damage to the rental unit such that a tenant could be entitled to "abate" some of the rent, and (5) did the landlord make reasonable efforts re-rent the unit after the tenant vacated.

Unpaid Utilities: This deduction would seem to be fairly straightforward, either the tenant paid their utility bill or they didn’t. But before you make any deduction for utilities from a tenant’s security deposit you should make sure that you have adequate proof to demonstrate that the tenant was responsible for paying the utility. Once again this is where a written rental agreement is a necessity. If you don’t have a rental agreement that clearly states whether or not the utilities are included or not you will often find yourself in a "he said - she said" situation. The person that usually wins that credibility judgment is the party that is the best at lying. Avoid being stuck in such a situation and always use a written rental agreement (even if your tenant is on a month to month tenancy) and always indicate in that rental agreement who is responsible for the utilities.

Another issue that arises with utility fee deductions is whether or not the utility bill became due prior to the 21 day period in which a landlord must either return a tenant’s security deposit or provide the tenant with a written itemization as to how their security deposit was applied. Landlords need to remember that they cannot just hold onto a tenant’s security deposit indefinitely while waiting for the utility bill to arrive. Once your tenant vacates, you will need to contact the applicable utility service and find out what amounts are owed as of that date. Attempt to obtain a written record of this amount if possible. A landlord is not excused form the 21 day requirement under ATCP 134.06(2) just because he or she didn’t yet receive the utility bill for which the tenant is responsible.

Other Reasons as stated in the Nonstandard Rental Provisions: As was mentioned above, if a landlord wishes to be able to legally withhold from a tenant’s security deposit anything other then items 1-5 above, then the landlord must have those additional items set forth in a written NSRP document. There is no such thing as a verbal NSRP. So those landlords that are handling everything verbally - you have limited yourself as to what you may deduct from your tenant’s deposit.

The items in the NSRP should be specifically identified and discussed with the tenant and you must have the tenant either sign or initial the provisions. Examples of items that are often included in a NSRP include: fees for the late payment of rent, the resulting costs to the landlord if a tenant's check is returned for "insufficient funds," any fees charged to the landlord by the local municipality for the tenant's improperly disposing of recyclables, fees for a tenant's failure to permit access to rental unit, the costs to rekey the locks should the tenant fail to return the keys to the unit after vacating, fees for smoking in a non-smoking unit etc. Some landlords charge a flat fee if the tenant fails to clean the stove or refrigerator but other landlords feel that such "liquidated damages" are illegal and if deducted from a tenant's security deposit might open the landlord up for being sued for double damages and atttorney fees. From recent case law it appears that it would be legal to charge a tenant for the actual costs incurred by the landlord for cleaning - at least if the landlord uses an outside company to do the work. The issue of deducting fees for cleaning from a tenat's security deposit is somewhat of a "grey" area so prior to placing such a provision in your NSRP you should consult with your landlord-tenant law attorney.

For those of you that are thinking creatively, I hate to squash your creativity but "no" a landlord may still not deduct for "normal wear and tear" even if there is a specific NSRP saying that such a deduction can be made and it is signed or initialed by the tent.

So that is it - those are the items that a landlord may legally deduct from a tenant's security deposit in Wisconsin.

Two additional notes of caution. First, if you make an improper deduction from a tenant’s security deposit Wisconsin law allow for your tenant to recover double damages and their attorney's fees if they prevail. attorney’s fees. So be careful. Second, security deposits are just that - security. A security deposit should not be treated as an additional source of income - something that a landlord can keep at the end of every tenancy. If you are withholding the entire amount of your tenant’s security deposit after they leave - every time and with every tenant - then it is just a matter of time until you will be sued and have to defend yourself against "double damages" and "attorney’s fees." You do not make money in this industry by keeping your tenant’s security deposits; nor is that the purpose of a security deposit.

To read about a landlord that got burned by not following the above information please go to my January 7, 2010 post.

City of Milwaukee Releases Its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program

The City of Milwaukee has just released its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program. The focus of these 5 special seminars will be on learning how to effectively and professionally manage your rental properties. All of the sessions will take place on Saturday mornings to allow those of you who work an additional job (aside from being a landlord) to attend.

I am very honored to have been asked, as president of the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin, to present one of these special sessions on Saturday, August 14, 2010. The topic that I will be addressing is the Judicial Eviction Process. The seminar will run from 9 am - 12 pm at Alverno College's Wehr Theater which is located at 3441 S. 39th Street.

Other special sessions in the 2010 program include:

February 6, 2010: (1) The District Attorney's new diversion program for tenant's who "bounce" their rent checks - presented by A.D.A. Ron Dague, and (2) The EPA's new renovation rules regarding lead-based paint which will become effective later this year - taught by Ada Duffey of Milwaukee Lead/Asbestos Information Center, Inc.

April 24, 2010: Screening Tenants and how using a good tenant screening company can assist you during the very important screening process - presented by Kathy Huens of Landlord Services, LLC

June 12, 2010: Fair Housing Practices - Know Your Local, State and Federal Laws - presented by Margaret Bowitz of the Milwaukee Metro Fair Housing Council

October 2, 2010: Fire and Building Codes - presented by Deputy Fire Chief Michael Payne and Department of Neighborhood Services Commissioner Art Dahlberg

All sessions are free of charge but ADVANCED REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. To register call (414) 286-2934 or email jhagne@milwaukee.gov

DNS Has Started To Implement The New Residential Rental Certificate Program

As many of you know the City of Milwaukee's new Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance went into effect January 1, 2010.

It is my understanding that the letter notices, along with a date for the inspection of your rental unit/s, the application, were all mailed out to affected landlords during the week of Dec. 28th -- so those of you in the two designated areas should have received your mailing by now - Merry Christmas.

In anticipation of the many questions about the Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) has added a new FAQ page to its website regarding the program. The web page also contains a link to a map of the two affected areas, a link to the RRI Application form and a link to the Pre-Inspection Checklist.

Landlords Should Not Play Games With Tenants' Security Deposits

A new landlord-tenant decision has been reccomended for publication. The case of Boelter v. Tschantz involves a tenant suing her past landlord for double damages and attorney’s fees for making improper deductions from her security deposit.

The essential facts are as follows:

1. Tschantz (the landlord) withheld money from the tenant's security deposit.

2. The key deductions that were made were: (1) $323.84 for the tenant's water bill and (2) $85 to repair a clogged toilet.

3. After withholding a portion of the tenant's security deposit to pay her water bill, the landlord then failed to pay the bill timely. As such, the tenant opted to pay the utility directly to avoid late fees.

4. The landlord then sent a refund check to the tenant -- three weeks later -- for the amount that he deducted from her security deposit to cover the water bill along with a Post-It note that said “Oh, too bad no double damages for you.”

5. The landlord then stopped payment on the check prior to the tenant cashing it.

The Court of Appeals held that the landlord violated ATCP 134 as a result of his "game-playing" with the tenant's security deposit.

First violation of ATCP 134: The court held that it was unreasonable for the landlord to withhold money from his tenant's security deposit in order to pay her water bill and then not use that money to pay the water bill timely. The court specifically stated, “A landlord cannot indefinitely retain a deposit -- merely as a deposit -- after a tenant vacates."

Second violation of ATCP 134: The landlord then failed to promptly refund his tenant’s security deposit once he learned that she paid the water bill. Tschantz returned the water bill monies to Boelter three weeks later with a taunting note.

Third violation of ATCP 134: Finally, the landlord placed a "stop payment" on the refund check to the tenant. The court stated that, whether intentional or not, this constituted a further improper withholding of the tenant’s security deposit.

The Court of Appeals has admonished this type of "game playing" with a tenant's security deposit in prior decision. So while the court's decision here is not anything new, it does serve as a reminder to all landlords that they are taking a big risk if they choose to play games with a tenant's security deposit. Remember DOUBLE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES - need I say more.

The more noteworthy aspect of this case concerns the court's holding with regard to the repair charge deducted from the tenant's security deposit. Tschantz deducted $85 from his tenant's security deposit to repair a clogged toilet. The $85 was itemized as follows: $40 service call fee plus 45 minutes of labor at a rate of $60 per hour for the actual work. Tschantz stated that this deduction was “less than or equal to what an area plumber would bill.” Problem was that Tschantz didn’t hire a plumber to do the work, instead opting to hire his son’s (handyman) company which only billed Tschantz $15 per hour for the work it performed.

The court emphasized that the applicable law, Sec. 704.07(3), Wis. Stats., states that a tenant is only responsible to reimburse a landlord for the "reasonable cost" of the damage. The court then added that the "reasonable costs" would be the actual costs that the landlord had to pay for the repair work. Since a plumber's fee also includes overhead and profit, the court said that Tschantz was not entitled to reimbursement of that amount. Tschantz was only charged $15 per hour by his (handyman) son to clear the toulet - $12 total per the court's calculation -- so that is the amount that he was entitled to legally deduct from his tenant's security deposit.

Since there is no other published Wisconsin appellate decision that have addressed this specific issue 9at least not to my knowledge) - this is really the key holding of the case. A landlord may not charge a tenant for repairs at the rate that a professional laborer would charge if the landlord does not actually incur those charges.

Finally, the court also explained that when a landlord improperly withholds money from a tenant’s security deposit that the tenant is entitled, as a matter of law, to an award of his/her attorney’s fees. Here, the trial court chose not to award the tenant her attorney's fees because the judge felt that the attorney's fees were too far out of propertion to the claimed damages. The Court of Appeals "slapped the hand" of the trial court judge and reminded him that an attorney’s fee award is mandatory if there is a violation of ATCP 134 even if the attorney’s fees are far greater then the actual damages at issue.

Expensive lesson for Mr. Tschantz.

NOTE: Since Mr. Tschantz lost his appeal in this matter he will also be responsible for paying his tenant's attorneys fees through the appeal per Shands v. Castrovinci, 115 Wis.2d 352, 340 N.W.2d 506 (1983)

Oral Arguments On Important Landlord Case To Be Heard on January 6, 2010

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case of Maryland Arms L.P. v. Connell on Wednesday, January 6, 2010. This is a very important case for landlords as the decision will affect a landlord's ability to contract with his/her tenant.

You can learn what the case is about by reviewing my earlier posts from May 28, 2009 and October 15, 2009.

Oral arguments will be streamed at http://wisconsineye.org for those that wish to watch.

The exact time that for the Maryland Arms arguments is unknown. The case is scheduled to be heard second. The first case starts at 9:45 am. More than likely -- and assuming everything runs on schedule -- the case will be argued before 11 am.

For those of you new to oral arguments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices will allow each side to summarize their arguments (which have already been submitted via briefs). The justices will also interrupt the attorneys in order to have them answer specific questions that the justices may have or to attempt to get the attorneys to concede certain arguments. Sometimes the grilling by the justices can be harsh. The justices will not issue a final decision on Wednesday. A final decision will be issued many months later in writing.

The AASEW, along with three other Wisconsin apartment associations, hired legal counsel to submit an amicus curiae brief setting forth the concerns of the apartment industry as a whole, with regard to the specific facts of this case. The lawyer for the apartment associations will also be allowed time to present our argument to the justices.

Landlords Sue City of Milwaukee To Stop Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance

On December 29, 2009, three landlords filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee in an attempt to stop the new Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance that was recently passed.

The lawsuit includes a complaint, motion for temporary injunction, ex parte motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and supporting affidavits. Essentially, the plaintiffs are arguing that the ordinance as written is (1) unconstitutionally vague, (2) contains fatal defects, (3) fails to provide for an impartial review and (4)interferes with their constitutional right to contract with their tenants.

I would suggest that you read the entire lawsuit but I will attempt to summarize the plaintiffs' main arguments.

1. 1st claim: The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague

The plaintiffs' argue that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords owning rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate. The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate. This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cite 7 examples within the ordinance where the landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

2. 2nd claim: The ordinance contains fatal defects

Basically this argument states that the ordinance as written contains terms which are unclear, have no definition, and fail to set forth clear standards for which a rental certificate will be granted. Additionally it is argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provide 9 examples within the ordinance where significant terms are not defined or are unclear. Essentially their argument is that the standard as to what will casue the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors (and essentailly that the subjective standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next). This argument also focuses on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioenr to draft rules or regulations which have not been made a part of the ordinance. This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes. The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

3. 3rd claim: Failure to provide impartial review

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS -- the employer of the inspector that made the intial decision. The plaintiffs argue that as written the ordinance allows the individual and agency that made the unwritten rules for inspection and then subjectively applied those rules, to also act as the decision-maker for the review of any contested determination. Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) require that all municipalities provide an "imparital decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination" to preside over any review.

4. 4th claim: Interference with the constitutional right to contract

According to the ordinance, all rental units within the two designated areas will be required to have a rental certificate in place (if there is a tenant residing in the unit) as of January 1st, 2010 --- Friday. If no certificate is in place by 1/1/10 then the owner of the rental will be in violation of the ordinance as written. The argument made by the plaintiffs is that since the ordinance does not provide for the rental certificates to be issued until after an inspection takes place (which will be at least 30 days after 1/1/10) that landlords will be forced to terminate the tenancies of their tenants or else be in violation of the ordinance. By being forced to issue a termination notice to their tenants, the plaintiffs argue that the city isinterfering with the landlords and tenants rental agreement - and by doing so they are interfering with a landlords right to enter into a contract with his/her tenant.

The plaintiffs are asking that the court to temporarily enjoin the city from enforcing the residentail rental certificate ordinance. They are also asking the court to issue an order declaring that the ordinance is invalid. Finally the plaintiffs are asking the court to permanatly enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinance.

This lawsuit has been tabbed to Judge Timothy Witkowiak.

A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was held earlier today before Judge Timothy Dugan. Judge Dugan denied the landlords' motion for a TRO without reaching the underlying problems with the ordinance. One of the requirements in order to be granted a TRO is that some "irreperable harm" must be demonstrated. Judge Dugan felt that becasue no landlord has been issued a citation by the city and because the city has not tried to remove any tenant from the plaintiff's' rental units, as of yet, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any irreperable harm."

Upcoming AASEW Meetings, Topics & Speakers

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) has some very interesting speakers and topics for its upcoming monthly membership meetings in 2010. All meetings are held on the 3rd Monday of the month at 7 pm at the Best Western Midway Hotel which is located at 1005 S. Moorland Road in Brookfield. There is no cost to attend the meetings. If you are not yet a member of AASEW, attending one of our monthly membership meetings is a great way to see what the organization is all about and learn how membership can benefit you as a landlord, property manager or vendor.

Our January 18th meeting will feature Attorney Robert Muten of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C. Atty. Muten will speak on the issue of employees vs. independent contractors. Whether a person is an employee of your business or an independant contractor will affect all of us at some point in our lives if the issue has not already confronted you. I have done research on this very interesting topic for clients in the past and the determination as to whether you are an employee or an independant contractor is very fact-specific. You will not want to miss this very informative meeting with Atty. Muten.

Steven Antholt of the State of Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services will speak at the February 15th AASEW meeting. He will discuss the new Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Program. This new program will affect everyone that owns or works on rental property and who “disturbs” more than 6 feet of interior space or 20 feet of exterior space, and/or is replacing any doors or windows in pre-1978 housing. This new law requires individuals to get specific training prior to its enactment date and to comply with a myriad of rules and regulations. The fines for ignoring this new law will be stiff --- so it would be in all of our best interests to be in attendence at this meeting.

On March 15th, Stacy Hegg, Property Manager for Wellston Apartments, will discuss best practices in rental property management and provide us with some management tips that we can use when managing our own properties. I have had the pleasure of co-presenting a seminar with Stacy a few months ago and found her to be a dynamic, knowledgeable, and enjoyable speaker. Come learn how to better manage your rentals from an expert in the industry.

I hope to see all of you at these future meetings.

I would like to wish everyone a healthy, safe, and happy holiday season. I apologize for the lack of substantive blog articles this past week but I have been very busy dealing with all of the crowds while trying to finish my last minute holiday shopping : )

Rep. Marlin Schneider Amends AB-340 (CCAP Bill)

On December 2, 2009, Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) made an amendment to AB-340. Referred to as Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to 2009 AB 340, this revised bill essentially would create two versions of the CCAP database. Schneider's amendment appears to be -- based on its timing at least -- a partial response to the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin's critical response to a memo that Schneider sent to other members of the Wisconsin legislature and staff on November 20, 2009. The problem with Rep. Schneider's amendment, if it is indeed a response to the AASEW's criticisms, is that it ignores everything that the AASEW attempted to explain to him.

The original AB 340 can be read in its entirety at www.DefeatAB340.org. This site also contains background information on the sponsors of AB 340, responses from across Wisconsin to Schneider's bill, and Schneider's earlier attempts to restrict CCAP and prevent landlords from legally screening rental applicants.

Version #1

Under the amended AB 340, the first version of CCAP would remain exactly as we now know it. It would continue to provide data on pending cases and completed cases that were resolved by stipulated dismissal, acquittal, or motion. It would also continue to provide information as to all original criminal charges filed even if those charges were later reduced or dismissed.

However, this fully transparent version of CCAP would be restricted to only a "chosen few," namely:

1. Justices, judges, magistrates, court commissioners, and other employees of state, federal, or municipal courts and agencies who require access to court documents and records during the course of their employement.

2. Law enforcement officers.

3. Attorneys and their employees.

4. Members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Assoc., the Wisconsin Broadcaster's Assoc., and any other Wisconsin media organization designated by the director of state courts.

5. A debt collector licensed under Sec. 218.04, Wis. Stats.

Version #2

The second version of CCAP would be a redacted version (just as was set forth in the original AB 340) and would exclude any and all information about any civil or criminal case that had not yet been resolved by: (1) a finding of guilt, (2) a finding of liability, (3) an order of eviction, or (4) the issuance of a restraining order or injunction.

Under the revised AB 340, a person would still be able to request that the director of state courts remove all CCAP information relating to that individual's case if it did not result in a finding of guilt, liability, eviction judgment, or TRO/Injunction, or if it was reopened, vacated, set aside or overturned on appeal. Thus, even the "chosen few" detailed above would still not have access to this information if an affected individual made a request to remove it from CCAP.

The revised AB 340 appears to have eliminated the requirement that all users must register with the Director of State Courts and pay a $10 fee. However, still intact in the amended bill is the requirement that a person who has been denied employment, housing, or a public accomodation, be informed that said decision was made after reviewing information contained on CCAP. The intentional failure to comply with this section could result in a $1,000 fine.

The revised AB 340 is not an improvement over its predecessor. Yes, I guess it does allow a select few to access most of the information currently contained on CCAP but what about those individuals who are not included? Landlords, employers, moms and dads, and everyone else excluded from accessing the info on the "real CCAP" are still being prevented from using CCAP to obtain information that falls under Wisconsn's open records law.

I wonder just how much time Rep. Schneider and his staff spent drafting the revised AB 340? Since the revised version still ignores Wisconsin's open records law and still hinders a landlord's ability to properly - and legally - screen a prospective renter, I hope that they didn't spend too much time on it because I still don't think it will pass.

What are your thoughts about this revised version of AB 340? Let me know your thoughts by sending a "comment."

AASEW Holiday Party Tonight

It is not too late to attend. You can register at the door.

Cost is $25 per person.

Location: Clarion Hotel at 5311 S. Howell Ave.

Music and lots of Food. Cash bar.

forget about all of the anti-landlord legislation being drafted and celebrate the holidays with us.

Mayor Signs Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program Ordinance

About 1 hour before the close of business yesterday, December 10, 2009, Mayor Tom Barrett signed the city of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance into law. Mayor Barrett left everyone waiting and wondering if he would sign it as the deadline to do so was the close of business yesterday.

The ordinance can be read in its entirety here.

The Preinspection Checklist can be found here. The checklist gives a detailed overview of all items that DNS will be inspecting when they come knocking in 2010. The landlords in the two designated areas will probably get pretty familiar with that checklist during the next 5 years of the "pilot program."

The ordinance will go into effect as of January 1, 2010.

Does Your Tenant Have A Pet? If Yes, Then You Should Be Using A Written Pet Agreement

NOTE: THIS BLOG POST WAS REVISED ON AUGUST 26, 2015

In talking with my clients and potential clients over the past year, I have also noticed that more and more landlords are allowing tenants to keep pets. I am not sure if this is because of the many pet owners that were also homeowners that have since lost their homes to foreclosure and have been forced to become renters or if it is because landlords are trying to be more accomodating to their tenants' wishes in order to keep their rental units occupied during a difficult recesssion -- or a combination of both.

Whatever the reason for this trend, if you are allowing your tenants to have pets then you must make sure that you are using a strong written Pet Agreement. Unfortunatly too many landlords do not use such a document - and it typically is to their detriment. Let's face it, "man's best friend" (if never trained or poorly trained) can cause A LOT OF DAMAGE to a rental unit. Don't even get me started about cats. While I personally have a cat that I am very fond of my experience with cats in rental units has not been good. Can you say "personal litter box?" Here is a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case about the damage that pets can cause to a rental unit.

Whether or not you choose to allow pets in your rentals is a business decision that all landlords must grapple with at one point or another. All animals, even rabbits, birds, reptiles, and fish can end up causing damage to a rental unit. If you have made the decision to allow pets then you need a good Pet Agreement.

Pet Agreements are considered to be part of the Nonstandard Rental Provisions document. Despite this your Pet Agreement should be a separate written document and not just a numbered provision within your NSRP.

A good Pet Agreement should have 4 key componants. First, it should specifically identify the pet that is being allowed to reside in the apartment. Second, it should set forth all charges/deposits for the pet. Third, a Pet Agreement must include the terms and conditions relating the keeping of a pet - the rules. Finally, the agreement should clearly explain what the consequences will be if any of the pet rules are violated.

1. Specifically Identify the Pet:

A client of mine had allowed his tenant to keep a dog as a pet - it was a fairly small dog - small enough to fit on a person's lap or a woman's purse (OK someone will need to explain to me the purpose of keeping a dog in your purse - I just don't get it). Anyways, that small dog eventually died and the tenant decided to buy another dog. Problem was the replacement dog could not fit in a purse as it was the size of a small car. It was too big for the rental property and it scared the neighbors and other tenants because of its gigantic size. While my client was using a written Pet Agreement, the agreement did not specifically identify the pet that was allowed to reside in the property - it merely said that the tenant could keep 1 dog. While the original (little) dog had passed away and was replaced with a much larger canine, the tenant still only had one dog -- problem was it was not the dog that the landlord wanted in his property and there was nothing he could do about it as the tenant had not violated the Pet Agreement.

A good Pet Agreement should clearly identify the animal/s that are being allowed to reside in the unit In order to do this the Agreement must identify the following:

- The type of animal (dog, cat, iguana etc.),

- The breed of animal (beagle, labrador, border collie),

- The name of the animal (you know . . . . Fido, Scrappy, Puss 'N Boots),

- The color of the animal,

- The age of the animal, and

- The weight of the animal.

If there are any other distinguishing characteristics of the pet then you should list them as well.

The Pet Agreement should clearly restrict the tenant to keeping the identified animal only. Should the "allowed pet" pass away during the tenancy then the tenant will not be allowed to replace that pet unless the landlord consents to the replacement pet by entering into a revised Pet Agreement.

2. List All Charges For Keeping A Pet

A second componant of a good Pet Agreement is that it should clearly state what charges will be required in exchange for keeping the pet. You can charge the tenant an increased monthly rent and/or a pet deposit. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Protection is of the strong opinion that you cannot charge a non-refundable pet deposit or fee. If you review the definition of a "security deposit" set forth in ATCP 134.02(11) that they are most likely correct. So while in the past I used to believe that you could charge a non-refundable pet fee, over the years I have changed my mind. If a landlord continues to charge a non-refundable fee they run the risk of being sued for an improper security deposit deduction which opens them up to paying double damages and attorney's fees to a tenant.

I have allowed past tenants to keep pets in my rental property. I required my tenants to post a refundable pet deposit to cover the cost to repair any damages that their pet may cause to my property. If there are no damages then the tenant gets this money back.

I have never charged an increased rent for the keeping of a pet, but I do know of landlords that do. Nothing is wrong with charging additional rent for the pet - the reasoning for using this option is that there will be increased "wear and tear" to the unit as a result of the pet and even if that wear and tear is not "damage," the landlord should be compensated for that additonal use.

Pet Agreements should also clearly state that the tenant's financial obligations for the pet are NOT limited to the non-refundable pet fee, the refundable pet deposit, or the increase monthly rent. If Sparky uses the baseboards in the unit as his personal rawhide bone and/or the Kitty unrinates and defecates all over the carpet and hardwood floors, you should be able to recoup all of the damages from the tenant and not be limited to only the amount of any fee or deposit.

3. List All Rules For The Pet

The third componant to a Pet Agreement is to list all of the rules that pertain to the keeping of the pet. Possible rules could include:

- The dog must be keep on a leash at all times when outside of the unit

- The cat's litter box must be changed twice per week and the contents of the litter box must be disposed of in a sealed bag and placed in the dumpster located outside of the rental unit

- The iguana must remain properly caged at all times and any waste must be cleaned or removed on a frequent basis so as to prevent odors

- All waste must be removed from the yard immediately.

4. Explain What The Consequences Are If The Agreement Is Breached

Finally, your Pet Agreement needs to include what I call "The Hammer" -- essentially you need to explain what will happen if the tenant and his/her pet are in violation of any of the rules. Will they be fined? If so, how much? Will a violation of the rulesbe considered a material breach of the agreement such as to give rise to the termination of the tenancy and an eviction lawsuit? Could a violation result in the removal of the animal? Obviously the consequence will depend on the nature of the violation and its severity. A tenant needs to clearly understand that they do not have a right to keep a pet in your rental unit - the keeping of a pet is a privilege - and there are consequences if the animal or the owner violates the rules.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that a service animal or an animal that is needed to "reasonably accomodate" a disabled tenant is NOT a pet. If a person meets the definition of "disabled," under federal, state or municipal law, and otherwise meets any other requirements for the use of an assistance animal or a companion animal, then they are legally entitled to keep that animal in their rental unit. Think of such an animal as a device that assists a disabled person live their life rather then a pet. An assistance animal is similar to a wheelchair, hearing aid, crutches, or medication. The difference between a pet and an assistance or companion animal will need to be covered in a future post (or many posts as it is a somewhat complicated topic).

If you would like to see an example of a good Pet Agreement visit Wisconsin Legal Blank Co. which sells a Pet Agreement that I have authored.

NOTE: THIS BLOG POST WAS REVISED ON AUGUST 26, 2015

AASEW Continues To Fight Against The City of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) continues its attempt to defeat the recently passed ordinance creating a Residential Rental Certificate Program in two areas of the city. On December 7, 2009, the AASEW issued a Press Release urging the mayor to veto the legislation in order to avoid expensive litigation.

Additonally, President of the AASEW Tristan Pettit wrote a letter to Mayor Tom Barrett pointing out many of the legal problems with the ordinance. A similar letter was sent to the members of the Common Council prior to their vote last week - which went ignored. The letter specifically delineates 6 of the many structural and legal problems with the ordinance and encourages the mayor to veto the legislation in order to spare the city the time and expense of defending the poorly drafted legislation in court.

The Mayor has until the close of business on Thursday, December 10, 2009 to sign the legislation or else it would go back to the Common Council for reconsideration. If the Mayor vetoes the ordinance then the Common Council would have to garner 10 votes (from the 15 members) in order to override the veto.

MILWAUKEE'S RESIDENTIAL RENTAL CERTIFICATE ORDINANCE PASSES

Earlier today by a vote of 9-5 the city of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance was passed by the Common Council.

Voting in favor of the new ordinance were Aldermen Ashanti Hamilton (1st district), Nic Kovac (3rd district), Robert Bauman (4th district), Milele Coggs (6th district), Willie Wade (7th district), Robert Puente (9th district), Michael Murphy (10th district), Terry Witkowski (13 district), and Willie Hines, Jr. (15th district).

Voting against the ordinance were Aldermen James Bohl, Jr. (5th district), Robert Donovan (8th district), Joe Dudzik (11th district), James Witkowiak (12th district), and Tony Zielinski (14th district).

Alderman Joe Davis, Sr. was not present and did not vote.

There was very little discussion on the proposed ordinance prior to its vote. Alderman Kovac (the primary sponsor of the ordinance) spoke in favor of the revised ordinance and gave a summary of the revisions that were made. Alderman Robert Donovan then spoke out against the ordinance and summarized some of the criticism that citizens had with the proposal as expressed at the public hearing earlier. Alderman Murphy then spoke in favor of the ordinance and emphasized that it is a pilot program that will be reviewed each year.

If you are interested in viewing the video recording of the vote and other related information just click here.

This new ordinance will make it mandatory for all landlords who own rental property in two designated areas of the city (the UWM area on the city's east side and the Lindsay Heights neighborhood on the city's north side) to apply for a rental certificate in order to continue renting out their rental properties. When applying for the certificate the owner will need to pay a $85 per unit fee and allow an inspector from the city's Department of Neighborhood Services to inspect the interior of the unit.

For more detailed information on this ordinance please refer to my prior post.

The AASEW was opposed to this ordinance and had hired legal counsel to point out the various legal problems with the ordinance and its drafting to the ordinance's sponsor, Alderman Nic Kovac. On a positive note, the original ordinance that was proposed was revised to address some of the issues and concerns that were brought to light by the AASEW. A copy of the newly enacted ordinance (Proposed Substitute C) can be read in its entirety here.

The Department of Neighborhood Services also put together a Residential Rental Inspection Program Preinspection Checklist which it is assumed will be sent to the owners of rental property in the two designated areas prior to the inspection. This checklist sets forth the specific types of violations that DNS will be looking for during its inspection. While the checklist is still pretty extensive it is still better then just having the subjective term "disqualifying violation" in the ordinance as was the case with the prior version.

This ordinance will become effective January 1, 2010.

As this ordinance is phased in please let me know your thoughts as to how it is being implemented. This is a pilot program and it will be reviewed annually so any and all input from affected landlords is vital.

TENANT MOVED OUT AND LEFT YOU HOLDING THE BAG!

With a short week ahead of us due to the Thanksgiving holiday, and the fact that I will be traveling to the wonderful land of flat terrain and tons of wind (a.k.a Kansas), I thought I would take this opportunity to re-post some very good advice from a friend of mine and fellow blogger, Bill Gray of Rent Recovery Services, who is also known as The Landlord Doctor. http://www.TheLanlordDoctor.com

Bill writes a blog that focuses on collection issues, and specifically collection issues related to past tenants. He also serves as the regional manager for a great collection service called Rent Recovery Service which I wrote about in a prior blog. Bill has some very good advice to share and I especially enjoyed his blog post entitled:

TENANT MOVED OUT - LEFT YOU HOLDING THE BAG.

Perhaps your tenant lied and took advantage of you. He may have skipped out on the lease or you may have evicted him. In either case, he damaged your rental and cost you money! What do you do now?

1. First, set your emotions aside and spend some time organizing your ex-tenant’s file. Whether you own one unit or one thousand, or whether you manage your rentals full-time or part-time, you are running a business. Any successful business keeps well organized, complete records.

2. Keep copies of all receipts required to repair the unit, spent on legal fees, unpaid rent, etc. Complete a move-out inspection checklist, preferably with the tenant if possible. Both of you sign the document. The move-out inspection will help you document the condition of your unit and the debt he owes you. If you are not completing move-in inspection checklists now, begin doing so with your next move-in. This important step is often left out because “I didn’t have time”. Take the time. There is no excuse for not having a complete move-in inspection signed by you and the tenant.

3. A sometimes confusing issue for some landlords is whether or not you may charge through the lease. If the tenant signed a twelve month lease and skipped out or was evicted after only six months, does he owe you for the remaining six months? The short answer is no, not yet. In many states, if you cannot re-rent the unit before the end of the lease, the tenant will owe you the lost rent. However, he does not owe you the rent until it is actually due. Only charge him now for lost rent, as of the date of the move-out statement. If you wish, you may update the amount he owes each month until the unit is re-rented or the lease expires. Discuss this issue with your attorney.

4. Does your lease include termination and/or “no notice” fees? I often hear, “It is in the lease; he has to pay it.” The thinking here is that if it is in the lease, it is binding. This is not necessarily true. Termination and no notice fees may be legal in your state, and your tenant may be held responsible for them. With various state laws and recent case law, I highly recommend you have your lease periodically reviewed by an attorney to make sure you are complying with current laws. If legal in your state, termination and no notice fees may be a great way to calculate all charges at the time of move-out, without having to add future rent as it comes due. Again, talk with your attorney about this.

5. Take pictures. A digital camera is important to your business. Move-in pictures are nice to have but move-out pictures are a must have. The checklist and pictures not only help document the condition of the unit, but they may be helpful later if the tenant gets creative with his description of the condition when he moved in and when he moved out.

6. Keep a log of all communications you have with your tenant, especially any communication regarding him moving or paying his rent. If you do not have a log, begin using one immediately for all your present and future tenants.

7. Once you have your records together, complete a move-out statement. Most likely your management software will do this for you. The move-out statement should include the names of everyone who signed the lease, the unit address, move-in and move-out dates, and a break down of the charges. If a deposit was placed on the unit, you will show the deposit subtracted from the total due. State laws vary on what, how, and when you are required to notify the tenant of how you applied his deposit. Follow the law to the letter. Not doing so will give your debtor the upper hand, and you may be required to repay his deposit even though he actually owes you money! Some states require that this move-out statement be mailed certified mail within a certain number of days of move-out. Keep your certified mail receipt with your records. You may need proof that you complied with the law. Mail the move-out statement to your debtor at his last known address. This may be the address of your rental unit. If the letter is returned un-received, keep it in the file also.

8. A word of caution here: Some landlords are tempted to pile on and exaggerate the charges. While tempting, it will do you no good in the end, and it is not legal. Being fair and reasonable in your charges will greatly increase your chances of recovering the debt.

9. Now that you have your documents organized and have mailed the move-out statement, do not just put the file away somewhere and forget it. The money you are owed is an asset. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the comment, “That bum will never pay his bill!” I can tell you with confidence that this way of thinking is costing landlords millions of dollars a year in lost profit. With little time and effort on your part, you may collect all or part of what you are owed.

I can help you with this collection process. Contact me at: Bill@thelandlorddoctor.com.

Thanks for the great words of advice Bill!

Happy Thanksgiving to my readers.