A new bill that would require a landlord to change locks for a tenant in cases of domestic violence is being shopped around for additional sponsors. State Rep. Dexter and Senator Holperin have drafted a proposed bill, which has not yet been introduced, which would allegedly protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring landlords to change the locks of the victim’s apartment unit within 48 hours if certain conditions are met.
ADDED 8/31/09 — The bill has officially been introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate. The proposed text of Senate Bill 274 (AB 400) is now available.
Specifically, the bill requires a landlord to change the locks of a tenant’s unit — or give a tenant permission to do so — if the tenant requests that the locks be changed and provides the landlord with a certified copy of any of the following: (1) injunction order protecting the tenant or tenant’s child from the person, (2) a condition of release [from prison] ordering the person to have no contact with the tenant or the tenant’s child, (3) a criminal complaint alleging that the person sexually assualted or stalked the tenant or the tenant’s child, or (4) a criminal complaint filed against the person as a result of an arrest for committing a domestic abuse act against the tenant.
If the tenant supplies her landlord with one of the documents mentioned above and requests that her locks be changed then her landlord must change the tenant’s locks within 48 hours after receiving the request.
The tenant will be required to pay for the cost of the lock change.
There will be an exception to the above which will come into play if the person who is the subject of the injunction order or criminal complaint is also a tenant living at the same unit for which the lock change is requested. If that happens then the landlord will not be required to change the locks unless there is also an injunction that prohibits the tenant from entering the property of the tenant making the request or there is a condition of release [from prison] ordering the tenant not to contact the tenant that is making the request.
Since this legislation has not yet been officially introduced there is not a link to the actual bill yet available on the Wisconsin Legislature’s website. When the bill is officially introduced I will add the link.
#1 by Bill on August 11th, 2009
| Quote
This so far sounds like nothing new. It clarifies some confusion. Does anybody else see something that I don’t?
#2 by John (Dr Rent) Fischer on August 13th, 2009
| Quote
Changing the locks in this sitation is something I have always done. However, when the person who is the reason for a lock changes is a co-tenant, changing the locks does techically qualify as an “illegal eviction”.
In the few cases this has happened, I have discussed it with my attorney here in Wausau who is of the opinion that if my “illegal eviction” would go to court, the judge would likely rule that the safety of the tenant would trump the illegal eviction rule. I have not gone to court yet on one of those.
I think that if the legislation specially addressed the illegal eviction that would result from changing the locks, this may actually be a very good proposal for giving us a safe harbor in what is currently a sticky situation.
#3 by Tristan on August 13th, 2009
| Quote
John — Good points. I have never encountered the situation that you mention to date. But it certainly would be sticky.
Trackback: Locksmith Leicester