Next AASEW Meeting - The Ins & Outs of Evicting - March 18th

The next AASEW meeting will focus on the "The Ins & Outs of Evicting."

The meeting will be held on Monday, March 18th, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Best Western Hotel located at 1005 S. Moorland Road in Brookfield.

The speakers will be Attorney Tristan Pettit of Petrie & Stocking S.C. and Detective Jon Nilsen of the Milwaukee County Eviction Squad.

Atty. Pettit will discuss the top reasons that the courts dismiss landlord's evictions and Det. Nilson will speak to us about how the execution of a writ of restitution works and what the Sheriff's Department does to remove tenants that refuse to leave our rental properties after being ordered by the court to vacate. Det. Nilsen will also tell us what we can do as landlords to provide the Sheriff's Department with the necessary and vital information that they need in order to safely complete the eviction process.

Attorney Tristan Pettit focuses his practice on representing landlords and property management companies throughout SE Wisconsin. Atty. Pettit is the presenter of the AASEW's popular Landlord Boot Camp and also drafts the landlord-tenant forms that are sold by Wisconsin Legal Blank and used throughout the state. Tristan is in eviction court in Milwaukee County every week representing many members of the Association and other landlords and property managers.

Detective Nilsen has been with the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department for 29 years and a Detective since 1995. He has served in various capacities within the Sheriff's Department including being a member of SWAT team for 14 years, the mounted unit, working as a bailiff in the courts, and patrolling the freeways. Since 1995 Detective Nilsen has worked with the eviction squad.

This meeting is free for current AASEW members and $25 for everyone else.

Hope that you all can make it.

GUEST POST: The Importance of Rentals In Milwaukee

Below is a very thought provoking guest post from fellow blogger (and friend and fellow AASEW Board Member) Tim Ballering:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Journal is reporting:

Over the next three years, Barrett said raze orders in the city are expected to grow to 1,600 homes, with a cost of $24 million. ”We have a very severe problem right now,” Barrett said.

No kidding we have a “severe problem ” This a problem that continues to grow rather than moderating. The number of abandoned and foreclosed houses was bad nine months ago and with fresh snow on the ground you can see even a greater number of unoccupied properties than ever before. At least here on the Southside of Milwaukee these numbers are far worse than what is being reported by the city.

How much of the $24 million of anticipated razing costs could be avoided by making it more favorable to rehab properties and restore them to the tax rolls?

Perhaps the city would do better by working with, instead of against people willing to invest their own money, time and effort into putting foreclosures back in service. I’m not even suggesting a hand up, just not the current beat down attitude. Not only would there be less spent on bulldozing, but more of the tax base would remain plus the positive economic impact for the community due to spending by owners to maintain and operate this housing.

Between taxes and the sewer and water bills the city gets at least $5-6 million per year from 1600 functional properties. In the three year period Barrett defines this is a potential of $18 million in city revenue if the buildings were returned to occupancy. Add this to the $24 million to bulldoze and you are north of 40 million dollars.

Can every property that is deemed to be worthy of razing able to be salvaged, of course not. But many that are in the pipeline today can be. Every day that a property sits unattended is a day closer to the wrecking ball being the only option for that property. There are many properties sitting vacant today that are worthy of repair, but will not be so six months or a year from now.

Additionally every time someone like you or I take on the challenge of putting properties back in service the local economy sees a benefit through the wages and materials we pay to get the job done. All but one of my employees live in the city. While the money you spend at the Home Depot doesn’t stay in Milwaukee, the person who is employed by the Home Depot lives in the area and spend their wages here.

A downside for us, but an upside for the community is a greater amount of housing stock available holds rents down. A more competative market also forces owners to do more to properties to get and keep them rented.

Once the property is back in service ongoing maintenance similarly impacts the local economy in a positive manner. It is estimated that repairs and improvements to rental properties represent $90 -120 million a year in the city of Milwaukee alone. (These numbers are derived from our company’s experiences, the experiences of other long term owners that I’ve discussed this with and data from the Census Bureau’s Property Owners and Managers Survey. Our data and that of many other owners indicate a slightly higher number than the Census)

Our company has the capacity and had the will to do 10-12 such projects a year without any government monies. Heck if the environment was more favorable I could see us doing two properties a month. We have not made an offer in MIlwaukee since November due the unfavorable policies adopted by the city. See my prior post on buying foreclosures in Milwaukee. I talk to a lot of other owners with similar capacities that say the same thing.

Milwaukee acts like they are the only girl at the dance – as though real estate investors need to accept their petty obstructions and poor treatment because they are the only game in town. But there are many other places to invest that treat owners much better. One of our members is doing a big rehab in Beloit. When I asked his project manager how it was going with the city he said they were unbelievably nice and truly seem they want to see the project succeed. We are actively looking at the South Florida market today.

A few notes:

These 1,600 properties must be city owned or near to being city owned. If they were bank owned the city could and would force the banks to demo the properties on the bank’s dime. A growing trend is banks that simply walked away from the mortgage rather than be subjected to the bad side of city regulations and fees. In another instance I spoke to an owner who the bank sued- he thought he lost the properties to foreclosure only to find out later that it was a money judgment only suit. This adds to the zombie housing effect. And you though only borrowers walked away. ;-)

Our police chief is in the news speaking about the link between foreclosed and abandoned housing and crime. I am certain he is correct on this. But the Milwaukee Police do not do what they should in cases of property vandalism. See my prior post on property vandalism and the lack of police response. This vandalism accelerate the rate of properties that are no longer viable for rehab.

East Side Landlord "Think Small" Seminar Event on March 13th

Make plans to attend the fourth East Side Landlord Think Small event hosted by UWM!

This event is free and open to all interested landlords, with a special focus on Milwaukee's East Side.

This spring's event promises to be very engaging with featured presenter Attorney Tristan Pettit, who focuses his practice on representing landlords and management companies in landlord-tenant law matters.

Topics will include screening potential tenants and recent updates to landlord-tenant laws in Wisconsin.

As always, there will be networking time to share ideas with fellow attendees, Q&A time with the presenter, and light refreshments will be served.

Event Details

Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Location: Chapman Hall on the UWM Campus, 2310 E Hartford Ave, Regents Room (2nd Floor)

Time: 4:30pm-6:00pm

Please RSVP to Heather Harbach at harbach@uwm.edu. Your registration helps us in our planning for this event. Please feel free to share this with other landlords that might find this session interesting! If you have further questions, please contact Heather Harbach, UWM Neighborhood Relations Liaison by e-mail at harbach@uwm.edu or by calling 414-229-4451.

Hope To See You There!

So Let's Talk About . . . Companion/Comfort Animals In Rental Properties

I have been promising that I would blog about this topic for months (could it possibly be over a year even) and the time has finally come. So let's talk about companion/comfort animals in rental properties.

Background:

I will use the terms comfort animals and companion animals interchangeably throughout this post.

So we are all on the “same page" a companion animal is an animal that is NOT specifically trained or certified but rather provides a tenant with a disability with emotional support. Specifically trained and certified animals that assist people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this post.

Wisconsin does not have a specific statute related to comfort animals. Many people improperly think that sec. 106.50(2r)(4)(bm), Wis. Stats. entitled “Animals Assisting People with Disabilities" applies to companion animals. It does not. That section deals only with specially trained and certified animals that help people with mobility, vision or hearing impairments. Comfort animals are not specially trained and/or certified and they do assist people with disabilities afecting more than just mobility, hearing and vision.

So what is the applicable Wisconsin law dealing with companion animals or comfort animals if they do not fall under this provision? Comfort animals are dealt with under a much more broad section of fair housing law dealing with "reasonable accommodations" which can be found at sec. 106.50(2r)(4), Wis. Stats.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a request made by a tenant for a change in a landlord's rules, policies, practices or services that are associated with housing when such accommodation is necessary to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

For example, a request by a tenant to keep a companion animal is a request for a reasonable accommodation to a landlord's "no pet" policy.

The Law:

It is considered to be discriminatory to refuse to allow a tenant's request to keep a comfort animal if they meet the following requirements:

1. The tenant meets the definition of having a disability under Wisconsin or federal law ("an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person regarded as having such an impairment, or a person with a record of such an impairment").

2. The accommodation must be necessary to afford the disabled tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental property.

3. There must be an identifiable relationship (or nexus) between the tenant's disability and the request.

So in the case of a request for a companion animal, the tenant must demonstrate a nexus between their disability and the function or service that the companion animal provides.

A landlord may request reliable disability-related information from a tenant that is necessary to: (1) verify that the tenant meets the definition of having a disability, (2) describes the needed accommodation, and (3) shows the relationship between the two. If the disability is open and obvious then the landlord should not request verification of the disability from the tenant.

The tenant's specific disability need not even be disclosed - just the fact that the tenant has a disability is sufficient.

A tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation may be oral or in writing and the actual term "reasonable accommodation" need not be used. The request can even be made by someone on the tenant's behalf.

Practical Effects:

In case you are wondering, the threshold that a tenant must meet in order to be able to keep a comfort animal is very low.

It is not even required that the tenant's doctor confirm that the tenant has a disability. HUD and DOJ's Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under The Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) states that a doctor or “other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the tenant's disability" may provide the verification of the tenant's disability.

As mentioned previously, a tenant's comfort animal need not be specially trained or certified. A comfort/companion animal can be any type of animal that the tenant wants. It could be the dog or cat (or mouse, rat, lizard, fish, . . . ) that the tenant owned prior to becoming disabled. It could be the stray dog that the tenant found walking down the alley last week. It could be a cat that the tenant's mother no longer wants in her house. It could be the rat that the tenant bought at the local pet shop.

I have read articles, case law, and been involved in cases in which all kinds of animals have been requested to serve as a tenant's companion animals . . . a miniature horses (because it would live longer than a dog and the tenant's mental health disability would be exacerbated by the death of another dog that wouldn't not outlive her), 5 cats (each one allegedly assisted the person with a different aspect of their disability), snakes (tenant was allergic to dander), and pit bulls (why . . . . just because). There is no limit on the type/breed, size, or age of a companion animal.

So if the tenant wants a Bull Mastiff as their companion animal even though they live in an efficiency apartment and a much smaller dog could serve the same purpose, they can do that.

A landlord can deny a tenant's request for a companion animal if it:

1. Poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others unless the threat can be eliminated or greatly reduced.

2. Results in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or greatly reduced.

3. Poses an undue financial burden and administrative burden.

4. Fundamentally alters the nature of the housing provider's operations.

For example, a landlord could exclude a tenant's comfort animal if that animal's behavior poses a direct threat because it attacked another tenant.

In order to make a decision to deny a tenant's reasonable accommodation request to keep an animal that poses a direct threat to others safety, you will be required to go through a very fact intensive analysis. You cannot just refuse the tenant's pit bull comfort animal just because you might believe that all pit bulls are inherently dangerous. There must be a direct threat not just a speculative risk. Even if the animal was once dangerous, if the tenant takes the animal to obedience training, administers medication, or purchases the animal equipment (like a muzzle) which causes the animal to no longer be dangerous, then it may no longer be reasonable to exclude the animal.

I have worked with many landlords and management companies in analyzing whether a tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation to keep a companion animal should be granted. Without a doubt the single most difficult concept for my clients to accept is that a comfort animal IS NOT A PET.

I find it easier for landlords to understand this concept if they think of the comfort animal as an assistive device such as a wheelchair, crutches, or pain medication. By thinking this way, many landlords will be better able to keep themselves out of trouble. Let me explain provide an example.

One of my clients generally understood that he had to allow his tenant to keep a comfort animal but he was wondering if he could at the very least require the tenant (and the companion animal) to live in the one building in his apartment complex that allowed pets. It was a very innocent question and one that I sure many landlords might have themselves.

The answer is a resounding “NO." Why is that?

Remember, a companion animal is not a pet. Again, think of the companion animal as an assistive device such as a wheelchair. Would it be acceptable to require all tenants that use wheelchairs to live in one building together? Would it be OK to require all tenants that are prescribed antidepressant medication to live on the same floor? Of course not. Well the same goes with the tenant with the companion animal.

Since comfort animals are not pets a landlord is also not allowed to make the tenant that has one enter into a Pet Agreement or pay a monthly pet fee or even a pet deposit.

Having said that, a tenant that has a companion animal is still responsible for the animal's behavior and any damage that it may cause. For example, the tenant must still pick up after the companion animal. The tenant must still keep the comfort animal on a leash and prevent it from jumping on or harming others. The tenant must still prevent the comfort animal from making excessive noise or damaging the rental property.

If a tenant does not take responsibility for the actions of their companion animal a landlord has every right to serve that tenant with the appropriate notice to correct breach or vacate and evict if them if needed. Since comfort animals are not specially trained or certified poor behavior is often an issue. I have had to evict several tenants with companion animals as a result of their poor behavior. In one case the companion animal which happened to be a dog repeatedly escapeed from the rental unit and ran free in the common areas of the building. Another case the animal (a dog again) bit another tenant. Another, involved a dog that crapped all over the lawn and the tenant refised to pick up after it.

Conclusion:

The popularity of comfort/companion animals is not waning. I expect that landlords and management companies will be getting more and more requests as more people are being diagnosed and treated for mental health issues for which a companion animal may prove helpful. Not to mention that many war veterans are returning with PTSD, depression, and/or anxiety, for which comfort animals are being prescribed. And there will always be those tenants that just want to have a pet without having to pay a pet fee or move to a rental unit that allows pets, so they buy a pet, play the system, and “disguise" their pet as a comfort animal.

If you have not already dealt with a request by a tenant for a reasonable accommodation to your “no pet" or “limited pet" policy, I am certain that you soon will. As such, it is very important that you educate yourself on the applicable laws so that you can properly handle such a request from a tenant and not run afoul of federal or state laws.

If you would like to learn more about comfort animals, reasonable accomodations, and fair housing (discrimination) law considering attending the AASEW's upcoming LANDLORD BOOT CAMP on February 23rd, 2013.

04-30-13 UPDATE: HUD has issued a Notice on Assistance Animals and Reasonable Accomodations For Persons with Disabilities. See my post on this.

It's Not Why Should You Join the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin . . . It's Why Wouldn't You?

By Joe Dahl (President of the Apaartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Owner of Milwaukee Metro Management, and guest blogger)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why Join the AASEW?

Since becoming President of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW) earlier this year and traveling around southeast Wisconsin promoting the group, I am continuously asked by prospective members “Why should I join the AASEW?”

I admit that my first reaction is often to turn the question around and ask the prospective member, “why wouldn’t you belong to the largest trade organization in our industry which has been tirelessly advocating for landlord rights and businesses in general?” I want to ask them if they are aware that the AASEW has saved landlords and the rental industry in general millions of dollars by fighting unfair laws and ordinances. The AASEW has been at the forefront of issues ranging from lead paint to property recording fees and were the only organization to fight against the city of Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) program, spending almost $100,000 dollars while lobbying and litigating against this unconstitutional program.

However more often than not, I politely explain to the prospective member at least 5 reasons that they should join the AASEW.

1. There Is Strength In Numbers

Have you seen the video of the 2.3 million toothpicks against the tiger? If not, you should as the story is a good analogy for our industry. We have over 40,000 landlords in Southeaster Wisconsin. Individually, none of us have a chance against the tiger (= state/local government).

The City of Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Inspection program is a great example of this. I have not met one landlord who agrees with this program. Even if your rental units are in great shape and have no significant deferred maintenance – by the way I own and manage rental units in both of the targeted areas and have received only minor violations -- I am sure that you take issue with having to pay a government employee to come into your property to look for code violations. However the “tiger” is strong and hungry (i.e. broke) so he turns to his number one prey for sustenance -- landlords.

As mentioned above, the AASEW fought this ordinance from the start. We talked and lobbied city officials and when that failed, we assisted affected owners by funding a lawsuit. Unfortunately in the end, we did not have enough strength to resist the attack, and we lost.

The proper approach to defeat this type of legislation is multifaceted and will require greater strength and more involvement by landlords in the future. Going forward however, we first need to support the aldermen who -- just like us -- were against the RRI program. Second, we need to educate the politicians about the economic impact that landlords have in SE Wisconsin. I’m fond of saying if we were in the business of manufacturing widgets, politicians would be tripping over one another to throw both money and praise on us. That certainly is not happening currently.

This year I will be asking the AASEW’s Board of Directors to authorize a comprehensive analysis of the economic contribution our industry makes in this region, and more importantly the pejorative impact that excessive fees and punitive ordinances have on our ability to hire employees, grow our small businesses, and contribute to the financial well-being of Wisconsin. The resulting report from this analysis will then be distributed to every politician in the area.

Third, we need to become more organized and efficient at getting out the vote. Which alderman/legislator is most unsympathetic to our cause? How many units do we control in his/her district? How do we get the message out to our customers (tenants) that a certain politician is not acting in their best interests? How do we mobilize tenants to express their dissatisfaction at the polls? We must hold the “tiger” accountable, and remember that he will not stop unless he is forced to stop.

In two years the RRI program will be reviewed for possible city-wide expansion. I promise you friends, that if you think the “tiger” is going to limit his hunting area to just the current pilot areas of Lindsay Heights and the UWM areas, you are soon going to be the “tiger’s” dinner. We must organize now for this imminent expansion and stop the “tiger” in his tracks!

2. Bad Laws Travel

Many of my colleagues with property outside of the Milwaukee area do not see the value of joining the AASEW as many of the most repressive ordinances and aggressive enforcement occur in Milwaukee. To this I frequently remind them that the Residential Rental Inspection program had its roots in an ordinance passed in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Our esteemed commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood Services at the time admired greatly the efforts of our northern counterparts in “holding landlord’s accountable.” Similar ordinances to Milwaukee’s are already popping up in other parts of Wisconsin.

Unfortunately Milwaukee is often the testing ground for such new laws, and if we are not organized enough to be in a position to stop them here, other areas will suffer as well. I assure you that what happens in Milwaukee does not just stay in Milwaukee – it can impact all of Southeast Wisconsin

3. Education

We are fortunate to have the premier landlord-tenant law attorney in the state of Wisconsin on the AASEW’s Board of Directors. Attorney Tristan Pettit’s reputation for vigorously defending landlords is laudable and the respect that he garners from his peers and the court’s is undeniable. Tristan is a landlord himself and recognizes that the best way for us to protect ourselves is to educate ourselves. Every owner/operator should attend the AASEW’s Landlord Boot Camp and rental property management companies should send each of their managers to this all-day seminar. Tristan and other AASEW board members constantly evaluate our curriculum to ensure that our members have access to the most current information so that it can positively impact their businesses and bottom lines.

4. Discounts

The AASEW is actively working on implementing ways to leverage rental property owners and managers’ group purchasing power in order to lower our individual costs. Possibilities include providing members a discount card that they can present to vendors in order to receive a discount and other innovative ways to implement group purchasing power. For an example look at some of the ideas of AASEW board member Tim Ballering.

5. Mentoring

Every successful landlord has had someone who gave them a guiding hand or some good advice along the way. I can say without a doubt that the reason that my business is as successful as it is is because I was fortunate enough to have a mentor named Dennis Miskowski who taught me the fundamentals of the trade.

Having the ability to turn to such a successful landlord for advice saved me a lot of wasted effort and energy. Mindful of what he has done for me, I have taken an interest in mentoring others and will not hesitate to field questions from young energetic (and at times naïve) landlords about the nature of our business. One of my favorite things about the AASEW is that it is a venue for those who have received to give back to others. Conversely, it provides those who are new to the business and hungry for information an opportunity to meet others who are already where the newer landlord wish to go.

There are countless other reasons to join the AASEW, but after I talk about the reasons above, most interested members are tired of hearing me talk (and probably of reading this post) and decide to join the AASEW in order to shut me up. I encourage you to get active in the AASEW and help make Wisconsin a better place for landlords to do business.

All the best.

Joe

joe@milwaukeemetromanagement.com

5th Annual Landlord Boot Camp Is Just Around the Corner - February 23, 2013 - Register now.

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.

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

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

Attorney Tristan Pettit has given similar landlord-tenant law seminars to fellow attorneys, landlords, and property manager organizations that charge their members $300-$400. This is your opportunity to learn all of the same information at a huge discount through the Apartment Association .

When: Saturday, February 23rd 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM ---- Registration opens at 7:00 AM

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

Included: 100 plus page manual to help you put what you learn into practice.

Price:

Early Bird – Sign up before Feb. 13th, 2013 and save

• Members $159
• Non-Members $249

Regular Registration after Feb. 13, 2013 but before Feb. 20th, 2013

• Members $259
• Non-Members $349

Sorry, no registrations accepted after 5 PM Feb. 20th, 2013

Specials: Not a member? Pay just $1 more and enjoy a full 10 months of AASEW membership.

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

Read prior attendees' testimonials.

What you will learn at the Apartment Association's 2013 Landlord Boot camp

Landlord Boot Camp covers everything that you need to know about residential Landlord Tenant law in Wisconsin, as amended by Act 143, 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 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).
16. An ample question and answer period. This alone is worth the admission.

    . . . and much more.

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. So much so we even had to turn a few people away.

You can sign up online at here or call the Association at (414) 276-7378 or email us at membership@apartmentassoc.org today to 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!

Next AASEW Meeting: "Do You Have Proper Insurance For Your Rentals" - January 21, 2013

Join us at the AASEW's next monthly membership meeting on January 21, 2013 at 7 pm at the Best Western Hotel (1005 S. Moorland Road, Brookfield).

The presentation will be entitled "Do You Have Proper Insurance For Your Rental Property?"

Bob Dummer of P&C Insurance and Dan Schani of Dan Schani Insurance Agency will be the featured speakers.

If you're like me, the topic of insurance sounds pretty boring ... that is until you are standing in front of the burned shell of one of your properties. Then the only thing you can think about is insurance.

Rather than hoping you made the right decisions for cost effective insurance, take an hour and learn from some of the best in the industry. How do I know they're a couple of the best? I've worked with both. Bob is my primary insurance agent. Dan is a former AASEW board member.

- Tim Ballering, Affordable Rental Associates, LLC

Meeting is free for current AASEW members, $25 for guests or expired members

Hope to see you there.

T

5 Things This Landlords' Attorney Wants For Christmas

With the coming of the holidays, comes list of gifts that people want for Christmas. So I thought I would put together one of my own. So here is a list of the top 5 things that this landlords' lawyer would like for Christmas.

5. That Tenants' Requests For Reasonable Accommodations To Allow for the Keeping of Companion/Comfort Animals Would Actually Be "Reasonable"

The past few years -- and especially this past year -- have seen a large rise in requests by tenants for a reasonable accommodation to landlords' "no pet" or "limited pet" policies specifically to allow for the keeping of a companion/comfort animal. A companion/comfort animal does not need to be specially trained and therefore can be any type of animal including the family dog, cat, gunea pig, or even a miniature horse. A tenant can ask for a reasonable accommodation -- and it should be provided -- as long as the tenant has a disability (i.e. an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) and the accommodation request has a "nexus" to the tenant's disability and will allow them to more fully enjoy a major life activity.

However, somewhere along the line tenants seem to have forgotten about the word "reasonable" in "reasonable accommodations."

It is not reasonable in my opinion to need 5 kittens as companion animals (which were recently born to a landlord-approved pet cat) just because the tenant thinks the kittens are cute and does not want to get rid of the litter.

It is not reasonable in my opinion for a tenant to request a pit bull dog as a reasonable accommodation just because the tenant's relative recently lost their home to foreclosure and can't find a place for their pet "pitty" to live.

It is not reasonable to have to allow a miniature horse as a companion animal because the tenant does not want to have a dog instead because dogs do not live as long as horses do, and if the dog should die it would exacerbate the tenant's mental health issues. Whereas the miniature horse will outlive the tenant so her mental health will be unaffected. Who cares what happens to the miniature horse after the tenant passes.

4. That Tenants Who File Bankruptcy Be Required To Disclose To The Bankruptcy Court That They Are Renters and that the Bankruptcy Court Create A More Efficient Process For The Tenant To "Pay and Stay" or Vacate

If a tenant files for bankruptcy something called the "automatic stay" kicks in that prevents any creditors (yes, that includes landlords) from attempting to collect a debt or in the case of landlords - evict a tenant. Now, tenant/debtors are supposed to disclose in their bankruptcy schedules that they file with the court whether or not they have any "executory contracts or unexpired leases." Without fail, tenants and there bankruptcy attorneys always check the box saying that they have no executory contracts or unexpired leases. I have handled at least 30 of these situations for my landlord clients and not once has the tenant advised the court that they were under an unexpired lease.

A landlord is then required to pay a filing fee, file a motion to lift the automatic stay, wait 14 days for the tenant to object, and if so participate in a hearing before the court, to present evidence that the tenant isn't paying their rent and the landlord should be allowed to proceed to evict the tenant. This process can be expensive and time consuming for a landlord whose hands are legally bound from doing anything until the bankruptcy court says he can.

It would be nice if the court or the bankruptcy trustee would confirm whether or not the debtor is a tenant and whether or not they are up to date with rent and if not, determine if the tenant can get caught up so s/he can stay, or advise the tenant/debtor that they must vacate the landlord's property.

To require a landlord jump through all of these hoops in order to remove a non-paying tenant from his rental property is just another financial drain on landlords. A landlord will spend at least one month (if not more) trying to lift the stay in bankruptcy court. Once that is completed, he then needs to serve the tenant with the appropriate notice, and after that time has elapsed, pay more money to file the eviction, and then wait another 2 weeks or so until the initial appearance in eviction court. As you can see, this process can delay things at least 2 months. So I would like to expedite this somehow. Wishful thinking I know . . . but hey, this is my wish list : )

3. That Tenants Stop Using Jury Trial Demands To "Buy" More Time In Evictions

In my 17+ years of law practice I have probably encountered somewhere between 10-15 requests for a jury trial by a tenant that I am evicting. Not one of those cases have ever resulted in an actual jury being selected. Instead the demand is often made just because it will prolong the case. In Milwaukee County when a jury trial demand is made, the case is tabbed to a large claims judge who often has a very busy caseload and is unable to even get the case into court for a Scheduling Conference for 2 months. Oftentimes, a trial isn't scheduled for months after the Scheduling Conference. On the other hand if a jury trial is not made, the small claims judge in Milwaukee County can hear the eviction within a week in most cases.

I have had jury trial demands filed in failure to pay rent cases where the tenant has no legal defense. Tenant didn't pay rent, notice was properly served, tenant didn't pay past due rent within cure period, and an eviction lawsuit was field. Tenant doesn't deny any of it but wants a jury trial. Now my client gets to sit for months with a non-paying tenant before obtaining a judgement of eviction. And no, landlords rarely ever see those rent amounts from the tenant even if they obtain a money judgment against them later because many tenants are not collectible.

I have had jury trial demands filed in cases where the tenant is being evicted for engaging in criminal activity that is scaring (and at times injuring) fellow tenants and neighbors. Yet, with the jury demand having been made, the landlord, along with the law-abiding tenants and neighbors, have to deal with the scofflaw tenant for months, unless they by chance would get arrested.

The law needs to be changed in this regard. While jury trials are an important part of the judicial system this practice that I am seeing more and more of is clearly an abuse of the system. Perhaps requiring that all jury trials must be held within so many days of the initial appearance or in failure to pay rent cases requiring that all past due rent must be paid up and future rent continue to be paid or the tenant loses his/her right to the jury trial. Something needs to happen to stop this frivolous practice.

2. That All Courts Follow the Law with Regard To Granting "Stays" in Eviction Actions

Sec. 799.44(3), Wis. Stats., is very clear that before a court is allowed to "stay" a writ that the tenant must pay all rent and other charges due as well as any rent that will become due during the period of the "stay." This law is often ignored by the courts to landlords' detriment.

I understand that it is difficult to tell a tenant that you are ordering them to immediately vacate the rental property even when the cause of their non-payment of rent is due to no fault of their own - such as losing a job due to downsizing or health issues -- but that is what the law says. If it is a bad law (and I am not saying that it is) then it can and should be changed through the legislative process.

Let me put this in another context. A tenant that has lost their job or that has encountered a serious medical issue may also not have money to buy food for their family, but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to shoplift food from the grocery store. If they did that they would be arrested.

So why is a landlord required to provide housing for a tenant who's tenancy has been properly terminated and after all proper legal channels have been followed? What makes a landlord so special that s/he gets this special treatment that places them in a different category than any other creditor. Why is a landlord required to house the non-paying tenant to the landlord's financial detriment and risk their ability to continue to provide housing for their paying tenants. Again, for those non-landlords that may be reading this post, most tenants are not collectible, so saying that the landlord will be made whole when they obtain a money judgment against the tenant is not realistic.

1. That All Landlords Join a Landlord Association (such as the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin - AASEW)

There are more private landlords in Wisconsin than there are teachers but landlords' voices are not anywhere near as powerful as are teachers. The reason for this is that landlords are not organized. Landlords tend to be an independent type that enjoy being their own bosses. That is well and good but landlords need to set that independent spirit aside on occasion for the betterment of themselves and all landlords. Only when landlords unit can positive change occur for them as there is strength in numbers. It is very difficult to survive financially as a landlord these days. But by joining a landlord association, a landlord's life can become a little easier. First, through landlord associations, landlords can create a united voice to challenge bad legislation or champion new legislation. Secondly, landlord associations provide educational opportunities for their members on changes in the law so landlords can stay out of legal trouble. Third, there is camaraderie in joining a landlord association which allows members to rub elbows with other landlords may be facing, or have previously faced, the same struggles that you are having.

If all landlords joined a landlord association and became active in them, we have the money and the numbers to create change that would assist our industry.

____

Oh by the way Santa - if you cant give me any of my wishes on this list, I will settle for a new toy bike with red and white streamers dangling from the handlebars : )

Happy Holidays everyone!

Article on Landlord-Tenant Law Topped the List of WisBar InsideTrack's Most Read Articles of 2012

Milwaukee lawyer Tristan Pettit's article on landlord-tenant law topped the list of most-read articles from WisBar InsideTrack in 2012.

In the past year, WisBar InsideTrack received a number of timely and relevant article submissions from lawyers discussing legislative actions and judicial decisions, substantive legal issues, practice management, ethics, human interest and other developments.

On April 4, 2012, Attorney Tristan Pettit of Petrie & Stocking S.C. wrote an article entitled "Landlord-Tenant Law: Rights, Remedies, and Changes Under New Act 143" which discussed many of the changes in the new landlord-tenant law that took effect on March 31, 2012, including the disposal of abandoned property, severability of rental agreement provisions, acceptance of past due rent and much more.

Here is a link to the Dec. 19th issue of WisBar InsideTrack announcing its top 10 articles.

Here is a link to Tristan's article.

Don't Miss the AASEW's Holiday Party on Monday December 10th.

It’s that time of year again, Ring in the Holidays with the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin's Annual Holiday Party!!!!

Monday, December 10th. Doors open at 5:30 p.m. Dinner at 6:30 p.m.

The Clarion Hotel 5311 S. Howell Avenue, Milwaukee

$30.00 per person, includes appetizers, dinner, coffee and dessert and door prizes prizes! Cash bar.

To register, mail your check prior to December 6th to AASEW, PO BOX 4125, Milwaukee, WI 53204. If you prefer, you may pay by credit card by calling us at 414-276-7378.

Happy Holidays!

The Staff & Board of the Apartment Association.

Hope to see you there

T

Milwaukee's Amended Smoke Alarm Ordinance To Take Effect June 1, 2013.

On November 8, 2012, Milwaukee's Common Council passed a revised smoke alarm ordinance by a vote of 13 to 2.

Effective June 1, 2013, all battery-operated smoke alarm must be powered by 10-year or more non-removable (sealed) batteries. Compliance with this requirement must be met when replacing any current battery operated smoke alarm after June 1st next year or by October 1, 2017 -- whichever is sooner. The AASEW was successful in getting the effective date of the revised ordinance delayed so as to allow landlords some additional time to use up their current supply of non-sealed smoke alarms.

The remainder of the ordinance which requires a "hush button" be present on the smoke alarm if it is located within 20 feet of the kitchen and the requirement of annual testing and recording of when the testing occurred and by whom, remained unchanged.

Milwaukee Co. Eviction Court Closure Dates Through End of Year

Milwaukee County just advised many of us that Eviction Court (room 400 only) will be closed the following days:

- Friday, November 2, 2012

- Friday, November 23, 2012

- Friday, December 14, 2012

- Monday, December 24, 2012

- Monday, December 31, 2012

Note: These closures do NOT apply to Judge Kuhnmuench's courtroom in room 409.

The Effects of "Obamacare" On The Small Landlord

There are so many questions regarding how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as "Obamacare," will effect small businesses such as us in the rental housing industry. What is the truth?

AASEW Attorney Heiner Giese, a fellow landlord, has researched the law in depth and will be one of the speakers at the AASEW's upcoming monthly membership meeting on Monday, October 15th, where this issue will be discussed. To present an opposing view, former Democratic legislator and current lobbyist, Gary Goyke, will also be on hand.

This is a huge piece of legislation with equally large potential impact on all of us.

Attendance is free to current members of the AASEW and $25 per person for non-members. Your AASEW General Membership includes admission for all members of a single household. An AASEW Business Membership includes admission for all owners and employees of a single business.

Please join us this Monday.

WHEN: Monday, October 15, 2012 at 7 PM

WHERE: Best Western Midway, 1005 S. Moorland Road, Brookfield (just south of I-94)

COST: Free to AASEW members. $25 per person for non-members.

New Milwaukee Smoke Alarm Ordinance To Require Sealed Lithium Battery Units In Residential Rental Housing

The City of Milwaukee has introduced a change to the residential smoke alarm ordinance. If passed, the revised ordinance will require the use of sealed smoke alarm units with 10 year lithium batteries in all city residential rental housing. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to install the sealed unit when replacing a current removable-battery unit or by October 1, 2022, whichever occurs sooner.

In is unknown what the impetus behind the revised ordinance was but most likely it was the fact that tenants still continue to remove the battery from their smoke detectors to use for other things . . . like their kids toys. While the “hush button” requirement a few years ago partially alleviated tenants removing the battery when cooking, it still did not prevent tenants from removing the battery to power little Junior’s Talking Elmo.

The cost of the sealed unit will run approximately $13 more per unit than current smoke alarms. Those landlords in an effort to reduce costs who decided to buy smoke alarms in bulk now find themselves facing a huge loss as they will have difficulty using up their stockpile before the new ordinance requires replacement with the new sealed units.

The current ordinance states:

214-23. Battery-Operated Smoke Alarms.

Every battery-operated smoke alarm shall be

tested by the owner not less than once every

calendar year. The owner shall provide a copy of

test results to the commissioner or the

commissioner=s designee upon request. Test

results shall include the date on which testing was

performed and the name, telephone number and

property relationship of the person who performed

the test. Testing shall be performed in accordance

with the manufacturer=s specifications for testing.

By September 21, 2005, every owner shall take

the actions necessary to ensure that any smoke

alarm located within 20 feet of the primary cooking

appliance within the unit has a silencing switch

(hush button).

The proposed revised ordinance is below:

Part 1. Section 214-23 of the code is repealed and recreated to read:

214-23. Battery-Operated Smoke Alarms. 1. TYPE. Every battery-operated smoke alarm shall be powered by 10-year or more non-removable batteries. Compliance with this requirement shall be met when replacing an existing battery-operated unit according to the manufacturer's recommended replacement date or by October 1, 2022, whichever is sooner.

2. SILENCING SWITCH. Any smoke alarm located within 20 feet of the primary cooking appliance within the unit shall have a silencing switch.

3. TESTING. Every battery-operated smoke alarm shall be tested by the owner not less than once every calendar year. The owner shall provide a copy of test results to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee upon request. Test results shall include the date on which testing was performed and the name, telephone number and property relationship of the person who performed the test. Testing shall be performed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications for testing.

Part 2. Section 214-27-3 of the code is amended to read:

214-27. Smoke Detectors and Smoke Alarms for Residential Dwellings Built Prior to January 1, 1983. 3. TYPE. Smoke detectors and alarms required under this section shall be single station devices, either battery operated >>as provided in s. 214-23<<, plug-in or directed wired A/C units unless otherwise required by the code.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 10/9/12 --- The hearing was held earlier today and it was referred to ZND committee for a hearing in November sometime. The ordinance was amended to require that the sealed lithium battery units go into effect in 2017 (5 years) rather than 2022 (10 years). A request was made by AASEW counsel Heiner Giese to delay the effective date of the ordinance to June 1, 2013 so that landlords could use up their current supply of non-sealed battery units - one alderman supported this request. Several alderman expressed concern that this proposed modification to the current ordinance would be expensive for homeowners who do not have to deal with tenants that remove the batteries from smoke alarm units

- Thank you to Heiner for the updated information.

Attend AASEW's Landlord Boot Camp on October 20th and Learn All About Wisconsin Residential Landlord-Tenant Law

Due to popular demand, the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin will be holding a second Landlord Boot Camp this year on Saturday October 20, 2012. Our last Boot Camp in February had more than 80 attendees and it was necessary to turn a few away. Additionally with the passage of the new Landlord Omnibus Law (Act 143), which took effect on March 31, 2012, we felt it was necessary to offer another Boot Camp this year so everyone can stay up to date.

Landlord Boot Camp is the most comprehensive seminar that I teach on residential landlord tenant law in Wisconsin. If you have not attended a Landlord Boot Camp before I would encourage you to sign up -- I do not think you will be disappointed. If you have previously attended, please be aware that there have been several updates to both my presentation and the outline as a result of the passage of Act 143.

Here are the details for this Fall's Landlord Boot Camp:

WHEN: Saturday, October 20, 2012 from 8:30 am - 5:30 pm (registration will start at 7:30 am)

WHERE: Clarion Hotel, 5311 S. Howell Ave. in Milwaukee

WHO: Taught by yours truly - Attorney Tristan R. Pettit

COST: $159 for current members of the AASEW and $259 for non-AASEW members.

WHAT WILL I LEARN: You will learn everything that you need to know about residential landlord-tenant law in Wisconsin. Here is a detailed outline of the topics that will be covered.

WHAT IS INCLUDED: (1) A detailed manual containing Tristan's outline of all of the topics discussed as well as sample forms, (2) Q & A session, (3) Lunch, (4) Coffee, soda and other light refreshments throughout the day, (5) Certificate of Attendance/Completion, (6) and the opportunity to mix and mingle with other landlords and property managers.

WHAT HAVE OTHER ATTENDEES SAID ABOUT LANDLORD BOOT CAMP: Here are some past attendees' testimonials.

HOW TO REGISTER: The easiest way to register is to go to www.LandlordBootCamp2012.com. You may also call (414) 755-0852 to register.

I hope to see you all there!

Thanks

T

Are Wisconsin Residential Leases Worth The Paper They Are Written On?

In my personal opinion the answer is often "no." The reason being is due to Wisconsin's requirement that a landlord make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit if a tenant is evicted or decides to vacate early, and if this is not done, the landlord is not entitled to further rent from the breaching tenant.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that leases in Wisconsin are worthless and that you should never use them. What I am saying however is that they are not as wonderful as some people think they are and landlords need to understand there limitations.

Let me digress to provide some additional background.

First, you should always have a written rental agreement in place with your tenant. The days of verbal agreements over a handshake are long gone.

Second, a "rental agreement" is a general term that includes both leases and periodic tenancies (such as a month to month tenancy. A lease is an agreement for a specific term. It has a beginning date and an end date. Periodic tenancies -- like a month to month -- are not leases as there is no end date and they continue until they are terminated by either the landlord or the tenant.

So when I talk about a "lease" in this blog post I am only referring to those rental agreements that are for a specific term. By signing a lease, a tenant is agreeing to reside in a specified rental unit until the end of the lease term and to pay rent during the entire lease term. So what happens when a tenant decides not to fulfill the term of his or her lease?

Well, according to sec. 704.29 of the Wisconsin Statutes, if this happens, a landlord may only purse the breaching tenant for the remainder of the rent owed under the lease if that landlord has made reasonable efforts to reduce the amount of rent that the tenant is responsible for by attempting to re-rent the unit for the tenant. Translation - if a tenant breaks the lease, a landlord is required to spend time and energy to limit the damage to the tenant for his/her own action of breaking the lease, if landlord does not do this, landlord is entitled to nothing. Seems fair . . . . NOT.

Sec. 704.29 (1) specifically states:

"If a tenant unjustifiably removes from the premises prior to the effective date for termination of the tenant's tenancy and defaults in the payment of rent, or if the tenant is removed for failure to pay rent or any other breach of a lease, the landlord can recover rent and damages except amounts which the landlord could mitigate in accordance with this section . . ."

The statute continues as follows:

"In any claim against a tenant for rent and damages, or for either, the amount of recovery is reduced by the the net rent obtainable by reasonable efforts to rerent the premises."

"Reasonable efforts" means those steps that the landlord would have taken to rent the premises if they had been vacated in due course, provided that those steps are in accordance with local rental practice for similar properties."

So even though the tenant is in the predicament s/he is in due to their own actions, a landlord is not legally entitled to collect rent for the remainder of the lease from the tenant unless the landlord tries to re-rent the unit for the tenant.

If the landlord is able to re-rent the unit for the same amount or more, then the breaching tenant is officially "off of the hook" and not responsible for any further rent because the landlord now found a new paying tenant.

Yes, it is true that a landlord is entitled to recoup from a breaching tenant the costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent the unit. So the breaching tenant is responsible for the advertising costs and maybe the costs of a "for rent" sign, or the costs of running a credit report for the new tenant. Not very much of a payback in my opinion.

Additionally, the courts that I encounter will not reimburse a landlord for the lost time and energy spent getting the unit into shape for re-renting (unless it is damaged), showing the unit to prospective tenants, or reviewing new applications. That non-reimbursable work is considered to be the "cost of doing business" for the landlord. OUCH.

So essentially, a landlord is required to do all this work to fix a problem created by a tenant, and if the landlord doesn't do that extra work, the landlord is not even entitled to attempt to recover rent for the remainder of the lease term from the departing tenant. If the landlord does that extra work and re-rents the unit, then the landlord is still not entitled to recovery of rent for the remainder of the lease term from the breaching tenant, because now the landlord is getting rent from someone else. So essentially the breaching tenant, despite being the person that created the problem in the first place, gets off scot-free.

Only when the landlord does the extra work involved in re-renting the unit, and is unable to do so, is the breaching tenant legally responsible for the rent for the remainder of the lease (or until it eventually is re-rented, whichever comes first). From a practical standpoint, that is a hollow victory as by this time the tenant is long gone, the security deposit most likely does not cover more than 1 month of the rent, and even if you can locate the tenant they may not be ""collectible."

I would like to reiterate that the goal of this blog post is not for all landlords to tear up your leases and only enter into month to month tenancies going forward. There are still tenants out there (I think?) that if they sign a lease, will honor it. They will either stay for the entire lease term or if for some reason they must vacate early - they will honor their lease commitment. Although I am sad to say that I am seeing fewer and fewer of these type of tenants these days -- most cannot afford to pay rent for two homes and opt to pay the landlord that is currently keeping a roof over their head rather than the landlord that used to provide them shelter.

My aim is to insure that landlords using leases understand the legal limitations and requirements involved when a tenant breaks that lease. A landlord cannot just sit back and do nothing to re-rent the unit and expect to collect future rent from the exiting tenant. A lease is not some panacea that guarantees you the right to collect future rent when a tenant ditches. You are only entitled to that rent if you make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit for the breaching tenant and then only if the tenant can be located and is collectible.

So you need to ask yourself, is my lease worth the paper that it is written on? Only you can answer that question.

AASEW Annual Landlord Trade Show - Wednesday September 19, 2012

It is that time of year again . . . time for the leaves to start falling and the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin to host its Annual Trade Show. The AASEW Trade Show is the place to be on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 from 11 am - 5 pm. The Trade Show will be held at American Serb Hall at 5101 W. Oklahoma Avenue in Milwaukee, WI.

Entrance to the event is free with a donation of 3 non-perishable food items to the Hunger Task Force (or $4). Collection bins will be on-site.

There is no need to pre-register just show up ready to learn and have some fun. Oh, did I mention that there will be free food as well.

Come mix and mingle with landlords, property managers, and vendors that work with those is the rental industry. The Exhibit Hall will have AASEW business members who will be exhibiting their products and services to make your life as a landlord or rental property manager easier.

We will also have educational seminars throughout the day that you will not want to miss.

Some of the speakers will include:

- Margaret Bowitz of the Metropolitan Fair Housing Council will speak on the ever-important topic of fair housing (discrimination) law.

- Wausau-area landlord (and fellow blogger) John "Dr. Rent" Fischer will talk about the To 5 Most Asked Landlord Questions.

- Charles Harris of Credit Matters will provide attendees with Seven Steps To Better Credit.

- Graig Goldman and Mark Kivley of Re/Max Lakeside will teach everyone how to effectively purchase foreclosure properties

- Attorney Tristan Pettit will talk about Act 143: Wisconsin's New Landlord Omnibus Law focusing on the new provisions and their potential pitfalls as well as how the courts have been ruling on the new law these last few month.

I hope that you all can attend this educational and fun event next Wednesday. If you do please be sure and come up and say hello.

T

AASEW's Next Meeting: How To Buy Rental Property In The New Economy Featuring Joe Dahl - Monday, August 20th

I hope that you all can make it to the next AASEW membership meeting on Monday, August 20th, 2012 starting at 7 PM. Joe Dahl, a young and dynamic local landlord and property manager (and the newest member of the AASEW Board of Directors) will discuss how to successfully invest in real estate in this new economy.

Joe has successfully bought rental property using his own money, bank money, and the city's money under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Joe will discuss all of these options and explain how he has been able to successfully own and manage rentals in Milwaukee. Many of Joe's rental properties are located in the Lindsey Heights area of Milwaukee. Lindsey Heights is one of two target areas currently required by the City of Milwaukee's Residential Rental Inspection "pilot" Program requiring landlords to voluntarily submit their rental properties to city inspection and requires them to obtain "landlord licences" in order to continue to rent out their properties. I look forward to hearing Joe's experience with this controversial city program.

Joe's story of investing in local real estate while at the same time assisting in the preservation of Milwaukee's neighborhoods has been covered in local media outlets as well as National Public Radio.

Please join us for Joe's presentation, along with free food and my "educational moment" (a teaser for the AASEW's upcoming Landlord Boot Camp) at 7 pm at the Best Western Midway Hotel which is located at 1005 S. Moorland road in Brookfield. Attendance is free to AASEW members and $25 to any non-member who has previously attended a meeting. Come early and enjoy the free food and network with other landlords and vendors that cater to landlords!!

Landlord Sues the Dish Network For The Costs To Remove Satellite Dishes from His Rental Property -- and Wins

Most landlords have at one time been frustrated by a tenant who contacts a satellite television provider to install a satellite dish on the roof of a rental property without first obtaining the landlord's permission. In fact this unfortunately happens quite often.

The tenant ignores the lease provision which states that they can make no modifications to the unit, the building or grounds without the landlord's prior written consent. The satellite television provider doesn't bother to notify the landlord to ask if the landlord is OK with them drilling holes into the roof of the rental unit. If the satellite television provider even bothers to ask the tenant if s/he has obtained permission from their landlord, the tenant responds "yes, of course, go right ahead and install it so I can watch the big game on Sunday." The result, the landlord is stuck with an ugly satellite dish on his/her roof that needs to be removed and the strong possibility of future water intrusion problems after the tenant is long gone.

Most landlords have opted to either swallow hard and absorb the cost to remove the dish and/or fix any leak issues or attempt to hold the tenant responsible for the costs. Even if the landlord succeeds in obtaining a judgment against the tenant - most tenants are not collectible - so it is a Pyrrhic victory.

Well a landlord in a suburb of Los Angeles County decided to pursue a different path. Christopher Spencer opted to pursue the "deep pockets" -- satellite television provider instead. In what Mark Kellum of the Glendale News Press says is a novel and potentially precedent-setting legal case, Spencer successfully sued the Dish Network for the costs to remove three dishes from his rental property.

Spencer obtained a judgment of $850 to cover the costs to remove three satellite dishes from his apartment building and $110 in court costs. Spencer filed the small claims lawsuit after the Dish Network refused to reimburse him after months of informal negotiations back and forth.

It would be interesting to see if a court would also order a satellite television provider to reimburse a landlord for any water intrusion damage that was caused by the installation of the satellite dish.

Remember that federal law allows a tenant to install a satellite dish on a rental property but only in an area that is exclusively under the tenant's control -- like a private porch or patio. A tenant is not allowed to install a satellite dish in or on any common areas or area that is not under the tenant's exclusive control -- such as a roof, side of the building, shared porch etc. -- unless the landlord consents. Here is the FCC's summary of the rule.

While Spencer's win does not mean that a Wisconsin court must arrive at the same decision, it does give this landlord food for thought.

Accepting Past Due Rent After Termination of Tenancy: The New Law and Traps To Avoid

The Landlord's Omnibus Law (Act 143) introduced a new statutory section to Chapter 799 regarding situations when a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant after the tenant's tenancy has been terminated. Newly created sec. 799.40(1m) states as follows:

If a landlord commences an action under this section against a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated for failure to pay rent, the action under this section may NOT be dismissed solely because the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant after the termination of the tenant's tenancy.

On its face, this seems like a very helpful statute for landlords.

As a quick refresher, it is important to remember that a tenant's tenancy can be terminated in many ways such as after the "cure" period passes after being properly served with a 5 day notice, 14 days after being properly served with a 14 day notice, or when a lease term ends.

Prior to sec. 799.40(1m) being created, tenant's advocates argued -- and some courts held -- that if a landlord accepted past due rent from a tenant after the expiration of the tenant's tenancy that the landlord entered into a new agreement with the tenant for a month to month tenancy, thus waiving the landlord's right to proceed with an eviction action based on the prior notice.

I personally believe that such arguments are hogwash, but I will not digress, as that is not the purpose of this post.

Nonetheless, because this "waiver" argument was successfully raised in the past, I have always advised my clients to err on the side of caution and not accept past due rent after the tenant's tenancy was terminated. A landlord can refuse past due rent in one of two ways. First, a landlord can simply refuse the tendered past due rent from the tenant or return the rent payment to the tenant. This is always a difficult pill for landlords to swallow as they know that by returning the rent payment to the tenant that they will never see that money again.

Second, a landlord could hold the past due rent payment in escrow (not cashing the check or money order) and immediately write what I refer to as a "no waiver" letter and send to the tenant via certified and regular mail. A "no waiver" letter simply advises the tenant that their past due rent payment is not being accepted as their tenancy has already been terminated. The letter also should advise the tenant that it is the landlord's intent to pursue the eviction of the tenant and that the landlord will hold the past due rent in escrow pending a determination by the eviction court as to who legally has the right to possess the rental property. Finally, a "no waiver" letter should again remind the tenant that the payment they made is not being accepted.

Whenever I have drafted a "no waiver" letter for a client that has accepted past due rent from a tenant post tenancy, I never had a court hold that my landlord client waived his/her right to proceed with the eviction lawsuit. As a result, my clients have become big fans of the "no waiver" letter.

With the creation of sec. 799.40(1m), it would seem that there is no longer a need for a landlord to send a "no waiver" letter or to return a past due rent payment to a tenant . . . or is there. I would caution landlords against thinking that this newly created statute is the panacea that it appears to be.

Let me explain.

First, if you read the new law closely -- which I don't believe the drafters did or they would have remedied this oversight -- it states that an eviction based on a tenant's failure to pay rent, may not be dismissed solely because the landlord accepts past due rent after the termination of the tenant's tenancy.

There are many basis for terminating a tenant's tenancy besides just failure to pay rent. Other reasons may include the expiration of a lease term or a breach of the rental agreement for something other than non-payment of rent (i.e. criminal activity, damage to the property, loud music, illegal guests etc). The new law does not address what happens if a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant and the tenant's tenancy was terminated for something other than failure to pay rent.

So literally speaking, a court could still dismiss an eviction if a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant who's tenancy was terminated based on something other than failure to pay rent and not run afoul of the new law. Ouch! What about situations in which the tenant's tenancy was terminated for failure to pay rent AND other reasons? Does the new law apply those situations?

A second concern with the new law arose recently in Milwaukee County. Please note that this information was relayed to me by another person so I cannot 100% vouch that I have all the facts correct since I was not present when this happened. What I was told was that a landlord's eviction lawsuit, based upon a tenant's failure to pay rent, was dismissed because the landlord accepted past due rent from the tenant after the termination of the tenant's tenancy and failed to advise the tenant that it was the landlord's intent to still proceed with the eviction of the tenant. The court held that newly created sec. 799.40(1m) was not applicable in this situation because the landlord failed to advise the tenant of the fact that the landlord still intended to evict them.

Simply put, the new law is not as great as it appears --- so be cautious when relying on it. Know your judge. Know your court commissioner. Regardless of what the law says, if the court believes it says something else or is not applicable to your specific facts, you may not get the result that you were expecting.

So as a result of above, I am still advising my clients (despite sec. 799.40(1m) being the new law in town) that they should consider refusing to accept any past due rent from a tenant after the tenant's tenancy has been terminated. At the very least they should send a "no waiver" letter.

So proceed with caution.