I have had the opportunity to review the newly proposed legislation, authored by State. Representative Marlin Schneider (Wisconsin Rapids), that will affect landlords’ use of CCAP when screening rental applicants. This legislation has not yet been officially introduced so there is no link to it available on the web. Currently Rep. Schneider is sending it around attempting to find others who are willing to co-sponsor it with him. Read the rest of this entry »
Archive for June, 2009
State Representative Marlin Schneider from Wisconsin Rapids is up to it again. I just received word that Marlin Schneider has circulated a proposed bill (LRB 2267/3) which would require users of the Consolidated Court Automation Program, better known as CCAP, to pay an annual fee to use this computerized open records management system. Read the rest of this entry »
Did you know that if you have an illegal provision in your rental agreement that the entire agreement may be unenforceable? Unfortunately this is true. In the case of Baierl v. McTaggart the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that because the landlord’s lease contained an illegal provision, the entire lease could be thrown out. This result can occur even if you never tried to enforce the “illegal” provision as was the case with the landlord in the Baierl case.
In my representation of landlords over the past 14 years, the two most frequent situations in which I have found an illegal provision in a rental agreement were because: (1) the landlord decided to draft his/her own rental agreement and didn’t know that Wisconsin law prohibited him/her from including certain language, and (2) the landlord used a rental agreement that s/he found on the internet that was not drafted by a person knowledgeable about Wisconsin law.
The Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP 134, specifically ATCP 134.08 sets forth the 7 provisions that cannot be included in a Wisconsin residential rental agreement – often referred to as the 7 deadly sins. Read the rest of this entry »
I would like to apologize to those of you who are subscribed to my blog for having to tolerate all of the recent problems related to my old subscription service – especially the multiple email notifications.
Please be assured that I have chaged subscription services and this new service will send you no more than 1 email per day — and if I don’t revise or post a new blog entry that day then you will not receive any email notifications.
How about that – a system that actually works – pretty cool concept.
So I hope that you will give the subscription service another chance and that I haven’t scared you away. Unfortunately I am unable to manually subscribe you to the new service. So you will need to go to the link on the left hand side of my blog entitled ”Subscription Options” and then type in your email and press the “subscribe button.” You will then receive an email that you need to click on the link and you will then be officially subscribed.
Thanks and please accept my apologies.
T
Just last week I read yet another article about an owner and its management company in California being threatened with a $330,000 fine for failure to give it’s tenants a lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazard disclosure notice as required under federal law. Yes, that number is correct – $330,000 – I did not mistakenly add an extra 0 or two. That is $11,000 per violation for the 30 alleged violations. Read the rest of this entry »
Many of my clients ask me what amount they should charge a tenant who is late in paying rent. Many also wonder if there is a maximum amount beyond which they would not be allowed to charge as a late fee.
The only legal guidance we have as to what amount is acceptable as a late fee is the case of Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 178 Wis.2d 400, 504 N.W. 2d 393 (Ct. App. 1993). This 1993 Court of Appeal decision is not even specifically about the issue of late fees but rather addresses the issue of “waste” (when a tenant intentionally damages the rental property) and what amount of damages a landlord may recover against a tenant that commits waste on the landlord’s property. Nonetheless the Court in Geilfuss does state in its opinion that the late fee of $50 per month charged by the landlord was properly assessed against the tenant. Thus, we as landlords know that at least the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld a late fee of $50 per month. Read the rest of this entry »
Late fees are a necessary evil for landlords aw we often need some type of “hammer” to hold over the heads of tenants who pay rent late. With this post I want to provide you with some additional information on the requirements that must be met with regard to late fees as specified in ATCP 134 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Read the rest of this entry »