2011 Wisconsin Act 143 (Landlord Omnibus Law) Also Applies To Commercial Landlord-Tenant Law

While this blog primarily focuses on residential landlord-tenant law, on occasion I also touch on issues applicable to commercial landlord-tenant law. This is one such instance.

Commercial landlord-tenant is more straightforward than residential in my opinion because commercial tenancies are less regulated than residential. Typically what a commercial landlord and tenant agreed to and placed into their lease agreement is what governs. The Wisconsin Administrative Code's ATCP 134 does not apply to commercial leases and most of Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes does not apply to commercial leases unless (1) the parties had no written lease, or (2) the lease was silent as to certain issues (see sec. 704.03 and 704.05 respectively).

Well, that has all changed now with the passage of 2011 Wisconsin Act 143 which was signed into law last week and will take effect on March 31, 2012.

While almost all of the attention paid to the new law surrounded its effects on residential landlord-tenant law, the law also impacts the commercial arena as well. I too was caught up in the effect Act 143 would have on residential landlords and missed the applicability of this new law to commercial landlords initially --- thanks to Bob Anderson of Legal Aid of Wisconsin for redirecting me : )

As I have mentioned in prior posts, this legislation was fast-tracked for some reason and rushing new laws through the legislative process is never a good thing. In fact it is a recipe for disaster.

It appears that the legislators did not realize that Senate Bill 466 -- the precursor to Act 143 -- was written in such a way as to encompass commercial landlord-tenant law. When it was brought to their attention, a quick amendment was made to exclude one portion of the new law (the section that makes a rental agreement void if it contains certain prohibited language) from the commercial arena, but apparently there was not enough time to deal with the other sections of the new law, which now will apply to both commercial and residential tenancies.

So what do we have?

The following provisions of Act 143 apply to both commercial landlord-tenant law as well as residential:

1. Moratorium on evictions

2. Severability of rental agreement provisions

3. Disposition of abandoned property

4. Requirement that landlords receive an award of holdover damages when appropriate

5. Acceptance of past due rents

6. Withholding from and return of security deposits

7. Making any violation of chapter 704 a possible unfair trade practice

If you are unfamiliar with the above sections of the new law you should read my prior post summarizing the new law.

Number 1-5 above actually benefit commercial landlords. However numbers 6 and 7 are problematic

By adding ATCP 134.06, which focuses on the withholding from and the return of security deposits, to chapter 704, the new law has now made these requirements applicable to commercial landlords as well. Prior to Act 143 being passed, there was no law addressing what a commercial landlord could withhold from a commercial tenant's security deposit, nor was there any law regarding when that security deposit (or an itemization as to how the security deposit was applied) had to be returned to the commercial tenant. Well thanks to Act 143, now there is.

Act 143 allows a commercial landlord to only make deductions for the following items from a commercial tenant's security deposit:

704.28 Withholding from and return of security deposits. (1) Standard withholding provisions. When a landlord returns a security deposit to a tenant after the tenant vacates the premises, the landlord may withhold from the full amount of the security deposit only amounts reasonably necessary to pay for any of the following:

(a) Except as provided in sub. (3), tenant damage, waste, or neglect of the premises.

(b) Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, subject to s. 704.29.

(c) Payment that the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent.

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

(e) Unpaid monthly municipal permit fees assessed against the tenant by a local unit of government under s. 66.0435 (3), to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment.

(f) Any other payment for a reason provided in a nonstandard rental provision document described in sub. (2).

So if a commercial landlord would now like to deduct anything other then the items listed in (a) - (e) above, then that landlord needs to start using a separate written document entitled "Nonstandard Rental Provisions" which must list the additional fees/costs that can be deducted from a commercial tenant's security deposit.

Additionally, Act 143 now requires a commercial landlord to either (1) return the tenant's security deposit to them, or (2) send them an itemization explaining how that security deposit was applied, within 21 days of the following:

(4) Timing for return. A landlord shall deliver or mail to a tenant the full amount of any security deposit paid by the tenant, less any amounts that may be withheld under subs. (1) and (2), within 21 days after any of the following:

(a) If the tenant vacates the premises on the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the rental agreement terminates.

(b) If the tenant vacates the premises before the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the tenant's rental agreement terminates or, if the landlord rerents the premises before the tenant's rental agreement terminates, the date on which the new tenant's tenancy begins.

(c) If the tenant vacates the premises after the termination date of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises.

(d) If the tenant is evicted, the date on which a writ of restitution is executed or the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant has vacated the premises, whichever occurs first.

Commercial landlords never had to worry about that 21 day time frame before -- now they do. Needless to say it is much more difficult and time consuming to do a walkthrough of a giant commercial space and itemize any damages or cleaning charges than it is for a 500 square foot residential rental unit. I'm not exactly sure how commercial landlords will be able to comply with this time frame, but they will need to find a way, or else they may have to to their tenant double damages and attorney's fees. Which leads me to the next concern . . .

Act 143 now makes any violation of chapter 704 a possible violation of unfair trade practices, which pursuant to sec. 100.20, Wis. Stats. allows a tenant to sue a landlord for double damages and attorney's fees. Prior to Act 143 a commercial landlord was not in this predicament because unfair trade practices were set forth in ATCP 134 which only applied to residential tenancies. But now that Act 143 incorporates some provisions of ATCP 134 into chapter 704 -- and chapter 704 applies to commercial landlord-tenant relations -- things are different.

Here is the language of the new law:

704.95 Practices regulated by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. Practices in violation of this chapter may also constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair trade practices under s. 100.20. However, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection may not issue an order or promulgate a rule under s. 100.20 that changes any right or duty under this chapter.

I guess the only positive is that the new law says "may constitute" instead of "shall constitute" however to a commercial landlord that never had to worry about anything they did constituting an unfair trade practice and subjecting themselves to being sued for double damages and attorney's fees, I'm sure this will be of little consolation.

So not only will Act 143 require commercial landlords to make some modifications to the language in their leases, but it will require them to completely change how they run their commercial proeprty management businesses starting March 31, 2012 ---- 2 DAYS FROM NOW!!!!!

Landlord's Omnibus Bill Signed Into Law - Read It Now

Governor Walker did sign the Landlord's Omnibus Bill into law.

I appreciate the effort of everyone that called the Governor's office asking him to veto the bill due to its deficiencies.

Here is a link to the new law. Much easier to read than having to go back and forth between the orginal bill, the Substitute bill and the two amendments.

The two main concerns that I have with the law and which caused me to ask that the bill be vetoed. They are section 35M and section 36.

The AASEW has already spoken with Sen. Lassee's office regarding these two major problems and I will keep you informed if and when anything is done about them.

And yes, I will be reviewing all of Wisconsin Legal Blank's forms in the near future and making the necessary revisions - if needed - and will let you know when they will be available : )

Upon Further Reflection, I Think The Governor Should Veto The Landlord's Omnibus Bill

I spent several hours yesterday reviewing and thinking about the new Landlord's Omnibus Bill that is to be signed into law today by Governor Walker at 4 pm.

I then spent hours of time trying to summarize the new law in yesterday's blog post in an easy to read and understand format.

Since publishing the blog post yesterday I have a few more thoughts and concerns:

1. AASEW Board member and friend Tim Ballering pointed out to me that he believes that the new law as written will allow for any violation of Chapter 704 to be considered an unfair trade practice, thus allowing a tenant to sue his/her landlord for double damages and attorney's fees.

Here is the language at issue:

704.95 Practices regulated by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.

Practices in violation of this chapter may also constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair trade practices under s. 100.20. However, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection may not issue an order or promulgate a rule under s. 100.20 that changes any right or duty arising under this chapter.

In my prior post I did anticipate that this would allow for tenant's and attorney's to make arguments that any violation of Chapter 704 was an unfair trade practice and that concerned me. But after speaking with Tim and thinking about this in more deeply, and re-reading the new law - I think this is a major concern. So is this law saying that if a landlord improperly drafts or serves a 5 day notice that s/he can be sued by the tenant for double damages and attorney's fees? YES.

I believe that this is such a major problem that I will be contacting Governor Walker's office today before 4 pm and asking him to veto the bill.

2. The addition of the 8th Deadly Sin really concerns me. My friend and past Wisconsin Apartment Association President John Fischer succinctly addresses the problem with in an email that he sent to many in the industry which is reproduced below:

When the Housing Task force was looking at blight, blight went beyond just condition of the property, but it also went to criminal activity.

There has been a proposal that various apartment associations have been working on that would make it easier to evict a tenant for criminal activity. There is a “Crime Free Lease” program that started out west that is very popular with landlords and law enforcement. A few communities have started working on this program here in Wisconsin, but the biggest hurdle is that the key tool of this program is a “Crime Free Lease Addendum”. The problem is that this addendum is unenforceable under Wisconsin’s current laws.

The new law that is being signed by Governor Walker at 4 PM this afternoon (I have been invited to this private signing, but I want nothing to do with this) makes a large number of massive changes to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law. One of the most significant appears to be an answer to our attempts to allow for eviction for criminal activity. The new law would basically render a lease void if the lease contained language that criminal activity on a property would be a breach of the lease.

So there you have it. My take on this new law -- as well as many others in the industry -- is this new law will cause more harm then good. This is what happens when you try to rush legislation -- people do not have time to consider all of the different angles -- so I am planning on contacting Governor Walker and ask him to veto SB 446. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Thank you to tim Ballering and John Fischer for their thoughts, opinions, and guidance.

Landlord's Omnibus Bill -- with Amendments -- To Be Signed Into Law Today

One of the biggest pieces of pro-Landlord legislation in quite some time was passed by the Wisconsin Senate and adopted by the Assembly recently and will be signed into law by Governor Walker today. Unfortunately some of the pro-Landlord provisions were amended, diluted, or removed.

I am certainly not denouncing this new law. Many aspects of it will be very helpful to landlords. I just wish that more time had been allowed -- the bill was fast-tracked -- to allow for more discussion, thought and input and allowing for more notice. For instance, many of us in the rental industry were given one day advance notice before the public hearing on the bill which prevented many of us from attending.

I will attempt to summarize the new law in this post. As this new law plays out in the "real world" I am sure that I will be devoting additional blog posts to each provision in more detail.

The proposed effective date of this new law is March 31, 2012. So many of us will need to make some additions and/or modifications to our rental documents prior to that date.

Bankground of Legislation

The Landlord's mnibus bill (Senate Bill 466) was put on the "fast track" for reasons unknown to me. It was introduced on February 13, 2012 by Senator Lassee. A Substitute Amendement 1 was offered by Senator Lassee on February 29, 2012. Senator Waangard then offered the first amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 6th which was passed March 13th. Senator Lassee then offered a second amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 12th which was passed on March 13th. The bill will be signed into law by Governor Walker today - March 21st. Approximately one month from introduction to passage into law is very fast for the legislative process.

The key provisions of the new law are:

1. Moratorium on Evictions

This provision of the original bill remained untouched by the Substitute Amendment and the two amendments to the Substitute Amendment. The new law prohibits any municipality from imposing a moratorium on eviction actions. If a municipality has a current ordinance that contradicts this new law it cannnot be enforced.

We now must hope that individual counties, courts, and commissioners adhere to this law. While I don't anticipate courts ignoring this new law, I do anticipate court's continuing to use the "stay" provisions of sec. 799.44(3) to give tenants additional time to vacate during the holidays. So while municipalities will no longer be allowed to impose moratoriums, courts can still prevent evictions during holidays, creating the same result.

2. Severability of Rental Agreement Provisions

The original bill stated that any provision could be severed from the agreement. So if a landlord inadvertantly included a provision that was found to be improper or retaliatory in nature it could be removed and the remainder of the agreement could be enforced.

The Substitute Amendment diluted the above considerably by adding that if a rental agreement contains one of the "7 Deadly Sins" set forth in ATCP 134.08, the inclusion of any of those provisions cannot be removed and will render the entire rental agreement void and therefore unenforceable.

Amendment 1 to the Substitute Amendment went a step further and added an 8th illegal provision that if included in a rental agreement will cause the rental agreement to be void. The new illegal provision would include any language that allows a landlord to terminate a tenant's tenancy if a crime is committed in or on the rental property, even if the tenant couldn't reasonably have prevented the crime.

So in the end, the new law only allows the severability of certain rental provisions. If your rental agreement contains one of the 7 prohibited provisions set forth in ATCP 134.08 or the new prohibited provision created by this new law, your rental agreement will still be be void and unenforceable. Essentially, the new law takes the regulation ATCP 134.08 and codifies it into law.

More tragic is what the "8th Deady Sin" has most likely done to some other pro-Landlord legislation that I had hoped would become law -- the "Crime-Free Lease Addendum" bill. If you read my prior post on the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill you will see that this 8th Deadly Sin language effectively decapitates this proposed bill. This is a major disappointment as I believe that had the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill been passed it would have been the most significant piece of pro-Landlord legislation in years. Instead the "odds and ends" Landlord Omnibus bill seems to have killed it. Hopefully, I am wrong and it can be resurrected.

3. Dispostion of Tenant's Abandoned Property

Once again, the original version of this bill was awesome. It stated that any personal property left behind by a tenant could be considered abandoned and disposed of immediately in the landlord's discretion.

The Substitute Amendment modified the original bill by adding that any medical prescriptions and/or medical equipment left behind by the tenant must be held by the Landlord for 7 days. The Substitute Amendment also added that written notice must be sent to the tenant (and any secured party) prior to disposing of any titled vehicles or mobile homes deemed abandoned. I could live with both of those modifications.

However, the amendments to the Substitute Amendment added language that will require landlords to jump through a few hoops. The new law requires that a landlord provide written notice to the tenant at the time of entering into the rental agreement, and at each renewal of the rental agreement, informing the tenant that the landlord will not hold any property left by the tenant and that such property will be deemed abandoned and will be disposed of. Failure to provide this written notice to the tenant requires a landlord hold the abandoned property fpr a period of time as set forth in sec. 704.05 (5), Wis. Stats.

Essentially landlords will now be required to add a new language to their rental agreements -- and any renewal agreements -- advising tenants that any property left behind will be considered abandoned and can be disposed of. Looks like there will be a revised Rental Agreement being sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., in the near future : )

4. Information Check-In Form

This is one of the provisions of the original bill that I didn't care for. A landlord will now be required to provide a standardized information check in sheet to each tenant that contains an itemized description of the premises. The Substitute Amendment merely added that this form must be given to the tenant at the time of occupancy rather than at the time of signing of the rental agreement.

As I understand this law, this does not just mean that the landlord can give his new tenant a blank Information Check-In form to fill in -- which many landlords are already doing. Rather it means that the landlord must completely and thoroughly fill out the Information Check-In form to adequately describe the condition of the rental unit and give it to the tenant. So if you are not thorough in your description of the renal unit this document could be used against you by the tenant, after the tenancy has ended. This new provision of the law will clearly cause additional work for landlords and I fear could harm the less detail-oriented landlords out there when pursuing a tenant for damages to the unit or withholding portions of the tenant's security deposit for damages.

5. Holdover Damages Are Mandated

The new law requires that landlords be awarded holdover damages. If a tenant stays in the rental unit beyond his tenancy, the landlord is now legally entitled to -- at a minimum -- double the daily rent for the time period after the tenancy ended (i.e. the notice expired) until the tenant actually vacates the unit.

This is a positive change because current law (sec. 704.27) only states that a landlord "may" be awarded holdover damages -- and some courts would not award landlords these damages. The new law says that a court "shall" award a landlord holdover damages, at a minimum.

6. Withholding From A Tenant's Security Deposit

The new law has merely codified the provision of ATCP 134.06(3), which states that a landlord is allowed to withhold the following from a tenant's security deposit: (a) Tenant damage, waste or neglect of the premises, (b) Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, (c) Payment which the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent, (d) Payment which the tenant owes for direct utility service provided by a government-owned utility, to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment, (e) Unpaid mobile home parking fees which a local unit of government has assessed against the tenant to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant's nonpayment, (f) Other reasons authorized in the Nonstandard Rental Provisions.

The new law also adopts the portions of ATCP 134.06 which state that a landlord cannot withhold from a tenant's security deposit for normal "wear and tear" or other losses which the tenant cannot reasonably be held responsible.

7. Timing For Return of Security Deposit

The original bill indicated that in situations where the tenant broke the lease prior to the end of the term that the landlord need not return the security deposit or provide an accounting of how the security deposit was applied until 21 days after the lease term ended or within 21 days of a new tenant taking occupancy. This langauge is a substantial improvement over current law as it allows a landlord to hold the security deposit until he is able to determine if any future rent will owed by the breaching tenant if the landlord cannot locate a new tenant to re-rent the property to. I explain this issue in more detail in my earlier post on the Landlord's Omnibus Bill.

The Substitute Amendment waters this down a bit. The new law will now codifies ATCP 134.06(2)(a) and states that a landlord shall deliver or mail to a tenant the security deposit or itemization of how the security deposit was applied within 21 days after any of the following: (a) if the tenant vacates on the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the rental agreement terminates, (b) if the tenant vacates before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the rental agreement terminates or, if the unit is re-rented before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the new tenancy begins, (c) if the tenant vacates after the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant vacated, (d) if the tenant was evicted, the date on which the writ was executed or the date that the landlord learns that the tenant vacated.

So the new law kept the good part of the original bill but by codifying ATCP 134.06(2)(a) the landlord must return a tenant's security deposit or send out the itemization of how the security deposit was applied earlier than when the original bill stated in situations where the tenant was evicted.

8. Disclosure of Code Violations

The original bill required that a landlord disclose to any prospective tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations prior to the signing of a rental agreement, accepting of a security deposit or accepting of earnest money.

The second Amendment to the Substitute Amendment modified the original bill and as a result the new law requires a landlord to disclose to a new tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations if the landlord has actual knowledge of the violation (rather than if the landlord had received notice of the violation from a housing code enforcement agency as under the original bill).

Specifically the new law requires the disclosure to the new tenant if the following four conditions are met: (a) landlord has actual knowledge of the violation, (b) the violation affects the rental unit or a common area, (c) the violation presents a significant threat to the tenant's health or safety, (d) the violation has not been corrected.

9. Request for Repairs

The orginal bill required that a tenant first notify a landlord in writing of any repair or maintenance issue, and then allow adequate time for the landlord to address the issue, before reporting the problem to the building inspector, elected official, or housing code enforement agency. The Substitute Amendment removed this provision in its entirety so the law has not changed -- tenants are allowed to call whomever they want to complain about maintenance issues without any requirement that they first notify the landlord of the problem.

10. Acceptance of Past Due Rent

The new law states that if a landlord has filed an eviction against a tenant and the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant during the course of the eviction, that the court cannot dismiss the eviction solely based on the landlord's acceptance of past due rent from the tenant.

I really like this provision of the new law becasue currently, many tenants and their attorneys argue that if an eviction is pending and a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant, that the landlord's acceptance of that rent has effectively "waived" the landlord's right to proceed with the eviction.

11. Tenant Remedies

The Substitute Amendment added that any violation of chapter 704, including the provisions of the new bill, may constitute an unfair trade practice which may allow the tenant to sue a landlord for double damages and attorney's fees.

I don't like this new provision of the law for one simple reason. I believe it will be used by tenants and tenant's attorneys to seek double damages and attorney's fees whenever a landlord allegedly violates any provision of chapter 704, whether the violation is a true unfair trade practice violation or not. Only the provisions of ATCP 134, which will be codified in ch. 704 under this new law, deal with unfair trade practices. Nonetheless, I anticipate that we will see some very creative arguments by tenant's and their attorneys as to why a tenant should be awarded double damages and attorney's fees for violations of chapter 704 that are not unfair trade practice violations.

Now we will have to wait and see how this new law "plays out" in the real world of landlording. Some of the key things everyone will need to address before March 31, 2012, when the law takes effect are:

1. Make sure any rental agreement you enter into with a tenant after March 31, 2012, does not contain any language that would be in violation of the "8th Deadly Sin" which essentially means eliminating or modifying any language similar to that found in the Crime-Free Lease Addendum.

2. Make sure to add language in your rental agreement, and any renewal documents, stating that any property left behind by the tenant will be considered to be abandoned and will be disposed of by the landlord without any further notice to tenant (except for medical prescriptions and medical devices, mobile homes and titled vehicles).

3. Rename your Check-In / Check Out Sheet as "Information Check-In Sheet" and insure that you provide any new tenants with a completed copy of the form thoroughly documenting the condition of the rental unit.

4. Disclose any code violations that you have actual knowledge of that may present a significant threat to the tenant's health or safety before entering into a rental agreement or accepting a security deposit or earnest money.

Good Luck Everyone

ADDITION: 3/21/12 - Make sure you read my 3/21/12 post about why I now think this new law will actually hurt landlords more than help them

ADDED 4/11/12 -- Here is the link to the new law.

ADDED 4/11/12 - Here is a link to an article I recently authored on the new law.

ADDED 4/11/12 - Here is a link to the newly revised Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 704 re: Landlord and Tenant

Milwaukee County Releases Dates That Eviction Court Will Be Closed in 2012

Milwaukee County recently released all dates that Eviction Court will be closed in 2012. Most of them are obvious closings for holidays but there are a few that are not holiday-related.

So make sure you don't schedule a return date in eviction court for any of these days:

May 4, 2012

May 28, 2012

July 4, 2012

September 3, 2012

November 2, 2012

November 23, 2012

December 24, 2012

December 25, 2012

December 31, 2012

New Landlords' Omnibus Bill Being Debated In Madison

On February 13, 2012 2011 Senate Bill 466 (more commonly referred to as the Landlords' Omnibus Bill) was introduced by Senator Lasee and referred to the Committee on Insurance and Housing. A companion bill was also introduced in the Assembly - 2011 AB 561. A public hearing on the above bills was held on February 15, 2012.

The Landlords' Omnibus Bill addresses numerous issues affecting landlord-tenant relations in Wisconsin and if passed will greatly assist landlords.

The bill proposes the following:

1. Eliminates the ability of a municipality from enacting or enforcing any ordinance that imposes a moratorium on a landlord from evicting a residential or commercial tenant.

Such moratoriums have occurred in the past effectively preventing landlords from evicting tenants during the holiday season for instance.

2. Allows for the severability of all rental agreement provisions and prevents an entire rental agreement from being declared unenforceable against a tenant -- or void -- because it contains an unenforceable or void provision.

If passed this will effectively render the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Bairl v. McTaggart moot.

3. Allows a landlord to immediately dispose of any property abandoned by a departed tenant.

Currently according to Wis. Stats. sec. 704.05(5) a landlord can choose one of three options with regard to a tenant's abandoned property, but all three involve a landlord jumping through hoops and/or holding the abandoned property for a period of time.

4. Requires a landlord to disclose to prospective tenants if there are any uncorrected building code violations in the rental unit.

5. Requires that a landlord provide a residential tenant with a standardized check-in sheet describing the condition of the property at the time of the tenant's check-in.

6. Requires that a landlord shall (i.e. MUST) recover damages for a tenant's failure to vacate after his tenancy has been terminated. The amount of damages shall be, at a minimum, double the rental value of the unit for the time that the tenant held over, but can be more.

Currently Wis. Stats. sec. 704.27 only says that a landlord "may" recover "holdover" damages.

7. Creates a new statutory section that allows a landlord to withhold the following from a tenant's security deposit: (a) tenant damage, waste or neglect, (b) unpaid rent, (c) utilities, (d) any other items listed in a Nonstandard Rental Provision document.

Currently the above is only contained in the Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 134.06(3) -- which is a regulation and not law.

8. Provides that if a tenant vacates before the end of his lease that a landlord will not have to return the tenant's security deposit or send the teanant a security deposit itemization letter until 21 days after the lease ends or 21 days after the unit is re-rented.

Currently per ATCP 134.06(2) the landlord must return the security deposit or security deposit itemization letter within 21 days of the tenant "surrendering" the rental unit. As this regulation is currently written there are some instances where a security deposit must be returned to a tenant that has broken a lease even though the tenant will be legally responsible for future rent but is not responsible for any rent within the 21 days after the tenant surrenders.

9. Requires a tenant to notify the landlord in writing of any repair or maintenance problem before reporting the problem to a building inspector, elected public official or code enforcement agency.

Currently some tenants are calling DNS or other building code enforcement agencies alleging that they told their landlord of a maintenance or health and safety emergency in their rental unit and that the landlord is not making the necessary repairs - when this is not the case . Tenants may do this in order to "get a landlord in trouble" with an enforcement agency or to avoid paying rent. As a result, some landlords are hearing about the maintenance issue for the first time when contacted by the building code agency. This provision will hopefully eliminate such "he said - she said."

10. If a landlord has filed an eviction action against a tenant for non payment of rent and the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant after the eviction lawsuit was filed, the eviction may not be dismissed by the court solely because of the acceptance of rent.

Currently a landlord is in a catch-22 position. If a landlord accepts payment of late rent (either partial past due rent or the full amount after the "cure" period has ended) the landlord risks the court deciding that the landlord "waived" his right to proceed with the eviction. But if the landlord turns away past due rent offerred by the tenant after the "cure" period has passed, the landlord is essentially losing out on money owed to him that he will never see again.

Please be sure and call your state senator and state assembly person and urge them to vote in favor of the Landlord's Omnibus Bill.

HUD Issues New Rule On "Discriminatory Effect" a.k.a Disparate Impact

HUD has issued a new Fair Housing “disparate impact” rule that may cause problems for landlords during the screening process. The new rule creates a new provision entitled “Prohibiting Discriminatory Effects” which defines “discriminatory effect” as situations in which a facially neutral (i.e. not discriminatory) housing practice can become discriminatory if it actually or predictably has an effect on a group of persons that are members of a protected class.

The concern is whether or not this new rule will restrict landlord’s use of criminal background checks on prospective tenants. Recently Pepsi Co. agreed to pay $3.13 Million to resolve allegations of hiring discrimination against African-Americans based on Pepsi’s use of the African-American’s arrest records.

This recent settlement when read in conjunction with HUD’s new rule causes concern regarding whether it will be considered discriminatory to use a person’s criminal arrest or conviction as a basis for rejecting a rental applicant when such use would result in members of a protected class being rejected as tenants. For more on this issue and

please read Tim Ballering’s blog post entitled ‘Will Criminal Background Checks For Screening Be Restricted By Proposed Federal Rule?”

In light of this concern, the AASEW’s Executive Committee submitted the following comments to HUD:

The Apartment Association of Southeastern WI, Inc. is a trade association representing approximately 575 owners and managers of rental housing in the Metro Milwaukee area.

Our organization supports Fair Housing as well as community efforts to reduce the effects of crime within the neighborhoods that our members own and manage rental housing.

We are concerned that this proposed rule will restrict the legitimate and necessary use of criminal arrest and conviction records in screening tenants to exclude those who will cause disruption and harm to other occupants, the neighborhoods those properties are located in, and to our properties.

Many communities in southeastern Wisconsin have "Nuisance Property Ordinances" that hold owners accountable for the misdeeds of their tenants. For example Milwaukee's Nuisance Ordinance does not require the conviction, nor the arrest of the tenant or their invitees, rather simply repeat law enforcement activity will trigger the enforcement provisions of that ordinance.

As part of your proposed rule property owners need "bright line" guidance, establishing what background screening criteria and methods will remain acceptable under this proposed rule as well as protections from potentially conflicting local requirements.

It would be inequitable, causing unnecessary costs and harm to property owners if such guidance is not provided in advance of the implementation and enforcement of this proposed rule.

Hopefully additional guidance will be provided. If and when it is I will be sure to provide everyone an update.

CCAP Committee's Recommendation To Change Wisconsin's Expungment Laws Shot Down

Last year Wisconsin's Joint Legislative Council created a Special Committee On The Review of Records Access of Circuit Court Documents – what I affectionately referred

to as the CCAP Committee. Landlords were very fortunate that in the end the committee made no recommendations to change or alter information on CCAP or limit its access by landlords or any other group. The committee's sole recommendation was to call for the liberalization of Wisconsin's criminal expungement statute.

The proposed bill, if passed would have done the following:

1. Defined what is meant for a court to expunge a court record (and yes, this did include removing any reference to the conviction from CCAP)

2. Clarified that an expunged record may not be considered for employment or housing matters.

3. Stated that a person may petition the circuit court at any time to expunge the following:

- any court record of a person who was under the age of 25 at the time the crime was committed and who was found guilty of a forfeiture, misdemeanor, and certain (lessor) felonies, that are punishable by up to 6 years in prison.

- any court record of a person charged with an offense punishable by a forfeiture, misdemeanor, or felony in which all charges were dismissed or for which the defendant was acquitted AND the court determines that the person will benefit by the expungement and that society will not be harmed by the expungement.

So as you can see, the proposed bill would have negatively affected landlords in the screening process and if passed would mean that a landlord would find no record of the applicant having ever been charged and convicted of crime x, y or z (or charged and acquitted or charged and the later dismissal of the case), if the applicant had applied for and received an expungement.

It also would have meant that even if the landlord somehow learned of the conviction (or acquittal or dismissal) and the later expungement, that the landlord could not use that information when making a decision on whether or not to rent to that individual.

Furthermore, it would have meant that a landlord would be precluded from inquiring as to the existence of any expunged record from a rental applicant whether that question

be on the rental application itself or verbally when talking to the applicant.

Thankfully we do not have to worry about this proposed bill being passed as it never even got introduced. In a notice dated January 20, 2012, the Director of the committee wrote to the members of the committee to inform them that their recommended bill was not approved for introduction by the Joint Legislative Council by a vote of 13 to 6. While a petition can be circulated to have the matter reconsidered, I have not heard of that happening.

Last Chance To Sign Up For AASEW's Landlord Boot Camp 2012

Hi Everyone:

We have had a very good response to our ads for the AASEW’s 4^th Annual Landlord Boot Camp. So much so that seats are quickly running out . . . or we may need to consider adding a second seminar shortly after the first.

If you are interested in attending this year’s Boot Camp on Saturday, Feb, 25^th, I would strongly suggest that you register here.

I will be presenting this all-day seminar (8:30 am – 5:30 pm) at the Clarion Hotel located at 5311 S. Howell Avenue.

I will be teaching you everything you need to know legally to be a residential landlord or property manager.

Here are what past attendees said about Landlord Boot Camp.

We will cover topics such as:

- How to screen applicants

- How to avoid discrimination issues and better understand fair housing laws

- How to draft legal screening criteria

- How to legally reject an applicant

- How to spot an applicant that is “fronting” for another applicant that won’t qualify to rent from you

- What rental documents you should be using and why

- The Residential Rental Practices (Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 134) and what can happen to you if you violate any of these 21 regulations.

- What are the “7 Deadly Sins” and why you cannot include them in your rental agreement

- What is the best way to evict a tenant and how to accomplish this

- What are the different choices a landlord has when deciding what type of notice to serve a tenant

- How to serve a tenant a notice so that service cannot be attacked in court

- How to navigate your way through the judicial eviction process

- What evidence you must present at an eviction trial to prevail

- What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property

- How to draft a legal security deposit transmittal letter

- How to collect for past due rent and damage from an ex-tenant (or should you even bother pursuing this)

. . . and much more.

All attendees will also receive a 100 page + manual (with lots of sample forms) to refer to in your business when the seminar has faded from your memory : )

Attendees will also receive a free lunch on the day of the seminar.

Cost is $159 for members of the AASEW, $249 for non-AASEW members (you can join the AASEW for an additional $1), $199 for members of any landlord or apartment association. Past attendees will receive a discount for attending again.

Register online or by calling the AASEW at 414-276-7378.

I hope to see all of you there!!!!

T

Landlords & Wisconsin's New CCW Law

As I'm sure many of you are aware, Wisconsin has a new Carrying Concealed Weapon (CCW) law. Wisconsin Act 35 was signed into law on July 8, 2011 and took effect on November 1, 2011.

Since the new law was published, I have received several calls from landlords and property management companies asking me how this new law will affect them. Since the question has come up repeatedly I thought I would do a post on it.

If you have any questions about the CCW law generally the best resource I can direct you is a document that was published by the Wisconsin Department of Justice in August 1, 2011 entitled "Wisconsin's New Carrying Concealed Weapon Law: Questions and Answers" If you are interested in learning how the new law applies to employers generally (not just landlords) you should read Petrie & Stocking's Talking Workplace Law Blog posts on the subject here and here.

The Basics:

1. The law allows individuals to carry a concealed weapon upon their person in most locations as long as they have applied for and received a permit to do so.

2. The types of weapon that can be carried include: handguns, an electric weapon as defined in Wis. Stat. § 941.295(1c)(a), a billy club, and a knife other than a switchblade. See Wis. Stats. § 175.60(1)(j). A handgun does NOT include a machine gun, short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun. See Wis. Stat. § 175.60(1)(bm)

2. The law provides immunity to owners of property who do not prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on their property. So if you allow concealed carry on your property by others you will not be held liable for any consequences arising from that decision. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(b).

3. The law also permits owners to prohibit persons from carrying concealed weapons on their property.

4. Prohibiting concealed carry on your property strips you of the immunity mentioned above.

5. If you wish to prohibit concealed carry on your property you must post signs that are (a) at least 5 inches by 7 inches, (b) state that concealed weapons are not allowed in the building or on the premises, (c) specify the area where the prohibition applies if the prohibition only applies to a portion of the property, (d) place the signs on or near all entrances to the building.

So How Does The New Law Affect Landlords?:

An owner of rental property must decide whether or not they wish to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in their rental property and on the property grounds. Second, if they do wish to prohibit concealed carry they must determine if the prohibition will apply to the entire building or just certain portions of the building. Third, they must post the required signage.

If you prohibit concealed carry in your rental property, and proper notice has been posted, then it is against the law for anyone to enter, or remain in the common areas of the building or on the grounds of the building after being asked to leave, while carrying a concealed weapon.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that Wisconsin's new CCW law does not address a tenant's right to keep a weapon in his/her rental unit. The CCW law only deals with carrying a concealed weapon in public places such as the common areas of the apartment building. So even if the landlord posts signs preventing concealed carry in the apartment building, that does not prevent a tenant from keeping a weapon in his/her unit. A tenant has the right to keep a weapon in his/her rental unit just the same as a homeowner has the right to keep a weapon in his/her single family home. So if a landlord does not want a tenant to be able to keep a weapon in their rental unit than such language must be included in the tenant's rental agreement.

Also, even if a landlord prohibits concealed carry in the rental property, that prohibition does not apply to the apartment's parking lots. A tenant is allowed to keep a weapon in his/her vehicle if parked in the apartment complex's parking lot.

Many Unanswered Questions:

Wisconsin's new CCW law leaves many questions unanswered.

One question that immediately came to my mind is what will happen in those situations in which a landlord prohibits concealed carry in the apartment complex but has failed to include a lease provision prohibiting a tenant from keeping a weapon in the tenant's rental unit? The tenant has a right to keep a gun in his rental unit but how can he get the gun to and from his unit without violating the CCW prohibition since, depending on the layout of the apartment complex, the tenant will have to walk through a common area such as a hallway or lobby? Which "right" trumps in this situation?

Taking a more broad perspective of the law, there are even more important questions that remain unanswered, such as:

- How broad will the immunity provided under the new law extend?

- If a landlord decides to prohibit concealed carry in his rental property is he opening himself up to increased liability exposure?

- If a landlord prohibits concealed carry in his rental properties, does s/he now have a broader duty to protect his tenants or their visitors from someone that may enter the rental property with a weapon and ignores the CCW prohibitied posting? Does the landlord have an obligation to actively attempt to enforce his no CCW policy? If so, how should he enforce it? Does he have to post an employee at every entrance to ask people who enter if they are "packing heat"? Does he have to frisk people upon entering the apartment building? If a tenant is injured by another person who ignores the CCW prohibited sign will the landlord be liable to the tenant?

We will not learn the answers to these questions until the DOJ provides additional guidance or until lawsuits are filed, trial court and juries make decisions, and appellate courts either affirm the trial court's decision or not.

For additional factual scenarios and unanswered questions raised by Wisconsin's new CCW law I reccomend a magazine article entitled "Concealed Weapons Questions and Answers" written by Attorney Josh Johanningmeier published in the Wisconsin Independant Agent magazine.

Q&A: What A Landlord Should Do If Tenant Gives An Improper 28 Day Notice

Every now and then I like to highlight a question or comment that I receive on this blog that I think is especially educational. I recently received a great question from Peter which I have decided to reproduce as a blog post so that more people can view it and become better educated on the topic.

This specific question has to do with a month to month tenancy in which the tenant has served the landlord with an improper 28 day notice as the termination date does not coincide with the end of a rental period (i.e. end of the month) as required under Wisconsin Statute sec. 704.19.

Attorney Pettit,

This may be a little off subject, but I was hoping you could explain what a landlord's responsibility is when a tenant serves their landlord with a notice terminating their tenancy, but specifies an inaccurate termination date in the notice.

For example: a periodic tenant serves a 28 day notice to their landlord on 04-01-2012 terminating their tenancy on 05-05-2012. The notice was served with the proper length of time under Stat. 704.19(3), but it did not terminate the tenancy at the end of a rental period as required by Stat. 704.19(2)(b)1.

I know Stat. 704.19(5) says that such a notice would be valid, but would not be effective until the first date which could have been properly specified - i.e. May 31, 2012. My concern is the second-to-last sentence in Stat. 704.19(5) that says the party to whom the notice was served may “elect to treat the date specified in the notice as the legally effective date.”

Does that sentence mean the landlord has an obligation to inform the tenant that the termination date in their notice was inaccurate and will not be effective until May 31? If the landlord does not inform the tenant that the termination date in their notice was ineffective, could that be construed as the landlord’s “election” to treat the inaccurate date as the legally effective date?

There is no explanation in the chapter which describes what constitutes an “election” in this circumstance and that sentence seemingly creates an enormous loophole through which tenants can escape their responsibility to give a proper notice to vacate. Any thoughts or information you have on this matter are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

-----

Peter - Thanks for your question. Plese feel free to call me Tristan : )

You have cited the proper Wisconsin Statute that is applicable for this issue - 704.19. Sec. 704.19 is really the only guidance that we have on the issue. I am not aware of any caselaw interpreting 704.19 in Wisconsin.

I interpret the statute to mean that you, the landlord, can choose to accept the defective notice as it is and relieve the tenant for responsibility for rent after 5-5-12. If you do not want to accept the defective notice and relieve the tenant of responsibility as of 5-5 then I think it would be necessary to point out the tenant's error to the tenant, preferably in writing, to avoid an "waiver" argument that might be made by the tenant.

Each court (each judge, each court commissioner) is able to interpret the statute and the term "election" as they wish and to determine if you, the landlord, waived your right to the entire month's rent by failing to bring the tenant's error in the notice to his/her attention.

I don't know whether or not a court would decide that if you failed to bring the defective notice to the tenant's attention that you waived your right to collect the full month's rent. But sxperiencing how tenant-friendly many Wisconsin courts are, I wouldn't want to take the chance. To be safe -- and to "CYA" -- I would assume that a tenant might make the "waiver" argument and that a court could might make a ruling that because you did not bring this discrepency to the tenant's attention, that you waived your right to the full rent amount for May 2012.

From a practical standpoint, if I received an improper 28 day notice from a tenant, I would call the tenant and politely explain to them why the notice was improper and what the legal ramifications are --- that they are "on the hook" for all of May's rent. I would then follow that telephone call with a letter memorializing the discussion and explaining why the tenant's 28 day notice was improper-- explaining that the 28 day notice must coincide with the end of a rent paying period per 704.19(2)(b)(1).

Next, I would include in my letter that had the notice been drafted properly, that the tenant would be responsible for rent through the last day of the month - May 31st. I would then tell the tenant that you will treat the notice as effective on the last day of the month and remind them that while they can leave before the last day of the May that they are responsible for the full month's rent.

I would then wait and see what the tenant does.

Hopefully, after your explanation and showing them the statute, the tenant will understand that they made a mistake and pay you the entire month's rent.

If the tenant doesn't pay you any rent or only pays rent for 5 days of May, you should "5 day" them and then decide if you want to retain a portion of their security deposit to cover the rent that they are legally responsible for paying or if you would prefer to return the security deposit (to avoid any potential chance of the tenant being awarded double damages and attorney's fees) and sue them in a small claims (non-eviction) action for the rent they owe. There are pros and cons to either option and I am not suggesting one over the other but as I see it those are the two options that you have.

Thank you for your great question.

Don't Miss AASEW's January "Town Hall" Membership Meeting on January 16, 2012 at 7 PM

January's Apartment Association Meeting will be held this coming Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7 pm at the Best Western Hotel located at 1005 S. Moorland Road in Brookfield.

We will be hosting a "Town Hall" style meeting at which you can pose any and all of your property management or landlord-tenant law questions. Both Stacy Hegg of Wellston Properties and Atty. Tristan Pettit will be panel members.

Please bring yourself, a friend, and your questions to our meeting.

We have many new and exciting things in store for the AASEW in 2012. If you haven’t been to a meeting in awhile please come and join us!!!!

See the Association page for the more details

http://apartmentassoc.org

You Will Not Want To Miss AASEW's Fourth Annual Landlord Boot Camp on Saturday Feb. 25th

Landlording can be pretty complex, with a seemingly never ending myriad of paperwork, rules, landlord-tenant laws and simple mistakes that can cost you thousands of dollars.

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin's Fourth Annual “Landlord Boot Camp” can help you navigate these treacherous waters and teach you how to run your properties with greater profit and less hassles.

I have given similar landlord-tenant law seminars to fellow attorneys, landlords, and property manager organizations throughout the state for other state-wide semianr companies that charge attendees $300-$400. This is your opportunity to learn all of the same information at a huge discount through the Apartment Association.

Who: Taught by Attorney Tristan R. Pettit (who drafts the landlord tenant forms for Wisconsin Legal Blank)

When: Saturday, February 25th, 2012. 8:30 am – 5 pm

Where: Clarion Hotel 5311 S. Howell Avenue, Milwaukee [Map]

Included: 100 plus page manual/outline to help you put what you learn into practice plus helpful forms.

Cost: $159 for AASEW members and $249 for non-members. If you are not a member of AASEW but are a member of another landlord/apartment association the cost to attend will be $199.

Specials: Not a member? Pay just a dollar more and enjoy a 2012 AASEW membership.

Wisconsin landlord-tenant laws are constantly changing. To help keep you up to date we offer prior attendees a $50 discount.

Sign up by going to the AASEW's Landlord Boot Camp landing page where you can sign up online and pay via PayPal.

What you will learn at the Apartment Association's 2012 Landlord Boot Camp

Landlord Boot Camp covers everything that you need to know about residential Landlord Tenant law in Wisconsin, including:

1. How to properly screen prospective tenants.
2. How to draft written screening criteria to assist you in the selection process and protect you from discrimination complaints.
3. How to comply with both federal and state Fair Housing laws including how to handle with “reasonable modifications” and “reasonable accommodations” requests.
4. How to legally reject an applicant.
5. What rental documents you should be using and why.
6. When you should be using a 5-day notice versus a 14-day notice, 28-day notice, or 30-day notice and how to properly serve the notice on your tenant.
7. Everything you wanted to know (and probably even more than you wanted to know) about the Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134) and how to avoid having to pay double damages to your tenant for breaching ATCP 134.
8. When you are legally allowed to enter your tenant’s apartment.
9. How to properly draft an eviction summons and complaint.
10. What to do to keep the commissioner from dismissing your eviction suit.
11. What you can legally deduct from a security deposit.
12. How to properly draft a security deposit transmittal / 21 day letter.
13. How to handle pet damage.
14. What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property and how this may affect whether or not you file an eviction suit.
15. How to pursue your ex-tenant for damages to your rental property and past due rent (and whether it is even worth it to do so).

. . . and much more. There will also be time for questions and answers.

You get all this for less than you would pay for an hour of an attorney's time.

Last year’s AASEW Landlord Boot Camp was filled to capacity and we even had to turn a few people away. So call early to reserve your spot.

Call the Association at (414) 276-7378, email membership@apartmentassoc.org or go to our Landlord Boot Camp landing page to sign up online and reserve your spot.

Remember that “landlording” is a business — so take the time to educate yourself on how to better manage your business and avoid costly errors!

"Landlord Preemption Bill" Signed Into Law

It is nice to finally see some landlord-friendly laws being passed in the state of Wisconsin.

On December 7, 2011, Senate Bill 107 (commonly referred to as the “Landlord Preemption Bill”) was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker as 2011 Wisconsin Act 108. This new law creates Section 66.0104 of the Wisconsin Statutes and prohibits municipalities from enacting an ordinance that places certain limits or requirements on a landlord.

Specifically, section 66.0104 prohibits any city, village, town or county from enacting an ordinance that prohibits a landlord from obtaining and using any of the following information with respect to a tenant or prospective tenant:

1. Monthly household income
2. Occupation
3. Rental history
4. Credit information
5. Court records, including arrest and conviction records, to which there is public access
6. Social Security number or other proof of identity.

The new law also prevents a municipality from limiting how far back in time a prospective tenant’s credit information, conviction record, or previous housing may be taken

into account by a landlord. It also prevents a municipality from prohibiting or limiting when a landlord can enter into a rental agreement for a rental unit with a prospective tenant or show a rental unit to a prospective tenant during the tenancy of a current tenant.

Additionally, the new law prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that places requirements on a landlord with respect to security deposits, earnest money or pre or post tenancy inspections that are in addition to the requirements currently set forth in Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 134.

If a municipality has an ordinance on its books that conflicts with sec. 66.0104 than that ordinance is no longer applicable and may not be enforced.

This new law will positively affect landlords throughout the state, but most especially in Madison and its environs. I think as a result of Wisconsin Act 108 the city of Madison's Code just lost a few pounds.

Governor Walker Signs 2 Pro-Landlord Bills Into Law

Just wanted to let everone know that in the last few days Governor Walker has signed into law two bills that will positively affect landlords.

- On December 7th, Governor Walker signed SB 107 (2011 Wisconsin Act 108) which relates to prohibiting municipalities from creating ordinances that put limits on landlords. If you would like more detail on this law please see my prior blog post on the topic. Here is a link to the legislative history of the bill.

- On December 7th Governor Walker also signed into law SB 12 (2011 Wisconsin Act 92) which creates a presumption that a tenant's attorney's fees should be capped at 3 times the amount of damages at issue when a tenant sues a landlord for an alleged violation of ATCP 134. If you would like more information on this see my prior blog post. Here is a link to the legislative history of the bill.

New "Residential Lease Renewal or Notice To Vacate" Form Available at Wisconsin Legal Blank

I have recently completed drafting a new landlord-tenant form that is now available at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc.

The new form is entitled "Residential Lease Renewal or Notice To Vacate" and a sample can be viewed here.

Essentially this is a form that a landlord could use when his tenant's lease is ending (and does not automatically renew or revert to a month to month tenancy) and the landlord wants the tenant to remain as a tenant. The tenant would be allowed to opt for 1 of 3 options on the form.

1. Renew the lease for a specific term, thus creating another lease.

2. Continue under a month to month tenancy

3. Vacate at the end of the rental term.

With this form, the landlord should be filing in all of the blanks before offering to the tenant.. So for instance, if the landlord does not want to give the tenant the option to remain as a month to month tenant, that option could be stricken. The landlord should fill in the dates of any new term and any new monthly rent amount.

Per the language of the form, all terms and conditions of the current (and soon to expire) lease, rules and regulations, nonstandard rental provisions etc. will continue in full force and effect.

The form provides the tenant with a DEADLINE to return the form to the landlord so that the landlord will know what the tenant intends to do.

It also states that if the tenant fails to return the form to the landlord by the deadline, that the landlord will assume that the tenant intends to vacate the rental at the end of the rental term. So if a tenant does not return the form to you by the deadline, you should begin the process of re-renting the unit (or make a follow up call to the tenant to see if his unauthorized pit bull dog accidentally ate it, if you feel like enabling the tenant : )

I hope that the form proves to be helpful.

Landlord Owes $40,000 to Tenant In Baltimore Bed Bug Lawsuit

I stated in one of my prior posts that with the influx of bed bug infestations around the country, that it would only be a matter of time until we saw an increase in bed bug litigation as well.

While bed bug litigation is in its infancy, it has taken a large step forward recently.

A jury in Baltimore recently awarded a tenant $40,000 in damages, in what is described by the tenant's attorney as the "first bed bug trial in Baltimore." While I was not present at the 3 day trial or able to read a transcript of the trial, a recent news report indicates that the basis of the large damage award was the landlord's delay in addressing the bed bug infestation in the tenant's apartment. Allegedly, the bed bugs were introduced into the apartment complex by a neighboring tenant who then vacated, causing the bed bugs to migrate to the plaintiff's unit in search of food.

This verdict should concern landlords everywhere. We are now aware know that 12 individuals in Baltimore, felt a tenant should be awarded damages, and a landlord should be required to pay them, even though the landlord did not introduce the pests into the apartment complex. The jury award was based solely on the landlord's delay in addressing and resolving the bed bug infestation.

This is a warning to landlords everywhere that you cannot just sit back and tell your tenants that it is their responsibility to get rid og the bed bugs, even if the tenant brought the pests to the apartment. I have fielded many telephone calls from landlords and management companies, where I was told that the landlord/agent didn't feel that they should be required to eradicate the bed bugs since it was the tenant that brought them into the unit.

I think it would be foolhardy to sit back and require your tenant to eradicate the bugs. My advice to landlords is that you -- the landlord -- should take control of the situation and vet and hire a qualified exterminator. If you leave it to your tenants to eradicate the bed bugs, you may be sorry. A tenant may attempt to use homemade remedies that do not work and will allow the infestation to grow larger. A tenant may elect to use bug bombs -- which wil only cause the bed bugs to spread out to different units, making treatment harder.

It is your property. It is your investment. Do not trust its safekeeping to a tenant. You want to ensure that the situation is handled promptly and professionally. You can deal with who should responsible for the cost of eradication after the bed bugs have been killed.

We will be seeing more and more bed bug litigation in the future. The plaintiff's lawyer in Baltimore --- who hilariously is known as "Maryland's bedbug barrister" -- was quoted as saying that he has been contacted by more than 200 people in the last couple of years regarding handling their bed bug lawsuits and that he currently has 18 bed bug lawsuits pending.

For Those of You Who Thought The Installation of A Smoke Detector Was Simple . . . READ THIS.

AASEW Board member Tim Ballering wrote the City of Milwaukee Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) back in June to ask for clarification about the proper placement of smoke detectors in his residential rental units in the city of Milwaukee.

Ballering was prompted to write to DNS becasue he felt there was some confusion among DNS inspectors as to where smoke detectors should be installed.

Below is the entire text of Ballering's email to DNS:

> Subject: Smoke Detectors

> There is some confusion among DNS inspectors as to where smoke detectors belong.

> Most code enforcement inspectors are of the opinion the detectors should be outside the bedroom, within 6' of the door. Some are of the opinion that having the detector only on the inside of the bedroom does not meet code.

> Your code seems to be worded in a way that supports installing detectors outside the door at 214-27: "For floor levels containing a sleeping area, the required detector or alarm shall be installed within 6 feet of the sleeping area."

> However construction inspectors believe the smoke detectors are required to be inside the bedrooms and units installed outside the bedroom door do not meet the code.

> The DNS Smoke Alarm brochure seems to say either is okay:

> "Either in each sleeping area of each unit or elsewhere in the unit within 6 feet of each sleeping area. If the unit contains 2 or more separate sleeping areas, each sleeping area shall be provided with a smoke alarm."

> It obviously doesn't matter to the property owner where the detectors are put as long as a second inspector doesn't come along afterwards demanding they be relocated.

> So which does the code require, inside the bedroom or outside?

> And if the code doesn't care, then which is most effective in saving lives?

> I will have the Association publish the response so more owners are knowledgable as to what you require.

> Thanks

> Tim Ballering

The City of Milwaukee emailed its 8 PAGE response to Ballering on October 21, 2011. Here is the letter response from DNS.

While I know your time is valuable --- I beg you to read the entire 8 page answer. I want to see if you can finish reading it all the way through. Afterwards, I would like to know if you are able to tell me where you should place the smoke detectors in your City of Milwaukee rentals. I like to think that I am moderately intelligent person ---- and I read and review statutes, case law, and ordinances several times a week as a lawyer ---- but after reading this 8 page response my eyes glazed over and my brain went to mush.

The drafter's of these codes, ordinances, statutes, regulations etc. need to realize that if they want landlords -- or anyone, for that matter -- to understand them and be in compliance, they need to make it a bit more simple to understand and follow. One should not be required to be a brain surgeon to know where to install a smoke detector and you shouldn't have to synthesize 4 different laws in order to arrive at an answer -- thank you Todd Weiler for doing that for us. It is a relatively simple question: where should I install a smoke detector in my rental property to best protect my tenants. It shouldn't take 8 pages and many hours -- which I am sure Weiler had to spend compiling the answer -- to answer.

But don't fret, you probably will never have to re-read that 8 page answer again. Instead just turn to the city's recently revised brochure on smoke detectors. Sometime during my reading of the brochure, my eyes regained focus, my grey matter firmed up a bit, and I felt as if I actually knew where to install smoke detectors in my rentals again. Thank God for brochures : ).

Don't Miss the 2nd Annual East Side Landlord Think Small Conference on Wednesday November 9, 2011

I will be the featured speaker at the upcoming East Side Landlord Think Small Conference on Wednesday, November 9, 2011 from 3 pm - 6:30 pm at UW-Milwaukee, Chapman Hall located at 2310 E. Hartford Avenue, in the Regent's Room on the 2nd floor.

This conference is FREE to any and all interested landlords, with a special focus on Milwaukee's East Side landlords.

This conference is composed of 3 componants:

1. Featured Speaker - I will be speaking on the issues of "Causes for Eviction and Termination of Tenancy" and "Notices Terminating Tenancy." You will learn about the 4 basic notices that can be served on a residential tenant in Wisconsin (5 day, 14 day, 28 day and 30 day notices) and when you should be using each notice and why. While no one wants to have to evict a tenant . . . sometimes it is necessary. At the very least, landlords need to become comfortable with the various notice that can be served on a tenant when a tenant breaches his/her rental agreement or the landlord wants to terminate the tenant's tenancy. I will also discuss the proper way to serve a tenant with one of these notices. I will be handing out a detailed 11 page outline on this topic that attendees can take home to refer to when needed in the future. Examples of properly drafted 5 day, 14 day, 28 day, and 30 day notices will also be distributed.

2. Round Table Discussion - This discussion will include a panel of UW-Milwaukee staff, City of Milwaukee staff, myself, and others and will focus on local topics and common problems that East Side landlords encounter.

3. Panel of Experts - The panel will be comprised of members of the Milwaukee Police Department, Campus Police Department, Department of Public Works, Department of Neighborhood Services, and UW-Milwaukee Department of Neighborhood Housing and who will field any questions that you may have.

There will also be time to network with other landlords.

If you are interested in attending please RSVP to Heather Harbach, UW-Milwaukee Neighborhood Relations Liason at (414) 229-4451 or harbach@uwm.edu. You can also register for the event by clicking here.

I hope to see everyone there!!

New Federal Bill Would Add Two New Protected Classes To Federal Fair Housing Act

On September 26, 2011 both chambers of the U.S. Congress introduced legislation that would extend housing discrimination laws to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The HOME (Housing Opportunities Made Equal) Act was introduced by Sen. John Kerry and others. The bill would amend the Fair Housing Act to prohibit housing discrimination and intimidation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Wisconsin is one of 13 states and the District of Columbia that already outlaws housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, currently only 8 states afford fair housing protection based on gender identity and Wisconsin is not one of those states.