About the Author
Tristan R. Pettit is a shareholder with the Milwaukee law firm of Petrie & Stocking S.C. which has been in existence for over 115 years assisting individuals, families, and businesses throughout the state.
He focuses his practice in the area of general civil and business litigation with an emphasis on landlord-tenant law.
Mr. Pettit handles both commercial and residential evictions and the accompanying damages claims for his clients throughout the state. He has also been involved in litigation dealing with lead-based paint issues, Fair Housing (discrimination) claims, building code orders, public nuisance lawsuits, and both the prosecution and defense of Wisconsin Administrative Code – ATCP 134 – violations.
He assists clients with the drafting and interpretation of commercial leases and residential rental agreements and other rental documents and is the author of the landlord-tenant legal forms sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc., which are used throughout the state.
Mr. Pettit presents seminars on landlord-tenant law and related matters throughout the state and currently is serving as the president of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc.
#1 by Lynda Malmberg on March 22nd, 2010
| Quote
Good Morning:
With regard to your tenants maintenance of smoke dectors, we notify our tenants at the beginning of their lease that they are responsible for changing the batteries in the smoke detectors. Thereafter each year we notify them again in writing of this responsbility. Is an annual notification required?
Lynda
#2 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on March 23rd, 2010
| Quote
Lynda — Thanks for reading my blog and for your question. State law requires the landlord to provide a working smoke detector on each floor of the rental property (including the basement) except for the attic and storage areas. State law also requires that the tenant maintain all smoke detectors in the unit. Landlord is responsible for maintaining detectors in common areas. State law also says that if a building inspector or tenant gives written notice to the landlord that the detector is not working that the landlord must replace or repair the detector within 5 days.
To answer your question, it is not required that you give your tenant’s a yearly reminder notice to test and replace battery in the smoke detectors in their rental unit.
Having said that, I reccomend that landlords test the detectors in their tenant’s units on a yearly basis. I also reccomend that you record when that test was made and that the detector was operational. I would also reccomend that a landlord replace the battery in his/her tenant’s smoke detector on a yearly basis and keep a record of that.
Even though it is not required I think it may make sense for a landlord to test the smoke detectors in his tenant’s rental units on a yearly basis and to replace the batteries. I know that I do this around the 1st of each year on my rentals. Other landlords do it during daylight savigns time.
By doing so, it also allows you an opportunity to inspect the condition of your rental unit.
#3 by Jeffrey Schwark on April 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Good Morning,
I will start by saying thank you for this forum, I find it very helpful and one of a kind. I know you must be very busy but I was hoping you could point me in the right direction regarding a question I have. I am a landlord and I had tenants move without giving a 90 day notice which was one of the provisions I set within their lease. I think this is a breach of contract and if so can I to take them to court? Would it still be filed by small claims, and is there a time limit I must file within? Can I even file for this? Thanks for your time, Jeff Schwark
#4 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on April 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Jeff — Thank you for your kind words and I am happy to hear that my blog is helpful to you.
While I cannot give out specifc legal advice through this blog I can tell you of the general law affecting the issues that you have raised.
You did not mention if your rental agreement was a periodic tenancy (month to month or something similar) or a lease for term (1 year lease etc.). I will assume that it is the latter.
If a tenant breaks a lease for term and moves out prior to the ending of the term a landlord has a duty to make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit. The tenant will remain responsible for paying rent if the landlord is unable to find a tenant to re-rent. Tenant will also be responsible for paying the costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent the unit.
If you have a lease that states the tenant must give 90 days notice if they plan to move out at the end of the lease term and the tenant completes the lease term and then moves out but fails to give the landlord notice then you have an entirely different situation. Because it was a lease for term and the tenant completed the term the landlord cannot hold the tenant responsible for an additional 3 month’ rent just becasue the tenant failed to give the 90 day notice — the reason being that the tenant did complete the term of the lease. Those type of notice provision in lease are to assist the landlord so that the landlord is alerted by the tenant if they intend to leave at the end of the term but a landlord should not solely rely on the tenant to provide that notice. It is good practice for a landlord to send a reminder to the tenant prior to the 90 days notice period and either (1) advise the tenant that the lease will not be renewed and providing the tenant with move out instructions, or (2) include a new lease and ask the tenant to sign the documents and return if they intend to stay for another term.
To try and hold the tenant responsible for an additional 90 days rent beyond the completed rental term would be in violation of both ATCP 134 and Ch. 704 regarding “automatic renewal clauses.”
To address the additional issue that you raised in your comment (assuming it is not moot because of the above answer) small claims has jurisdiction over any civil lawsuits that are seeking $5,000 or less in damages. So if you were attempting to collect 3 months of rent from a tenant (and they have already moved out thus negating the need to file an eviction) then as long as the 3 months rent is less then $5,000 you would file that collection action in small claims. If you were seeking damages greater than $5,000 then you would need to file that in large claims and pay the higher filing fee.
Addressing the final issue raised in your comment, individual persons are allowed to represent themselves in court whether in large claims or small claims (whether or not that is advisable is a separate question that I will not address). Business entitites (corporations, LLC’s etc.) are not allowed to be represented in large claims lawsuits by a non-attorney — you would need to hire a lawyer to represent your business entity in large claims.
In small claims actions, the law carves out a small exception and will allow a business entity to be represented in court by a full-time employee of the business entity. Milwaukee – more than any other county – is enforcing this strictly and requires a copy of a W2 from the employee issued by the entity to verify this. Managing members or sole members of an LLC are not considered to be a full-time employee of the LLC unless they are paid income by the LLC.
I hope that helps
T
Pingback: BLOG COMMENT: What If Tenant Does Not Give You Proper Notice To Vacate? . . . and Other Questions. | Tristan's Landlord - Tenant Law Blog
#5 by Karin on May 5th, 2010
| Quote
I think your blog is great and so informative. I’m learning about fair housing right now and understand the federal protected classes but am curious on the state protected classes of Wisconsin.
Thanks!
#6 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on May 6th, 2010
| Quote
Hi Karen — Thanks for your kind words. Here is a link/url address to my blog post on protected classes which discusses both the federal law and Wisconsin law. Essentially, Wisconsin has adopted the 7 protected classses and added 5 more. Some municipalities like the city of Madison have created even more protected classes then the 12.
You may also want to spend some time at the http://www.fairhousingblog.com which is a blog written by an atty. and author taht focuses just on fair housing issues. It has links to the lawsuits filed which allows you to see the factual situations in which the government is going after landlords who have violated discrimination laws – it is very interesteing
T
#7 by Trish Deleskiewicz on May 8th, 2010
| Quote
My landlord has not returned my security deposit nor has he sent any deduction letter to me. It has now been 28 days and after sending him a “demand” letter, he contacted me saying he’s going to send a list of expenses “incurred” to return the house to pre-rent conditions. He never provided us with a move-in or move-out condition report and neglected to show for our walk-through appointment. After that, he stopped answering our calls and e-mails. He made mention in an e-mail that he sent us before we moved out, he would be refinishing all of his windows. Two weeks after we moved out, he left a VM saying that we destroyed his windows. I guess I’m just stressed out and need some advice.
Thank you so much in advance.
Trish Deleskiewicz
#8 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on May 8th, 2010
| Quote
Trish – Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. I cannot give legal advice over this blog but if you feel that your landlord has violated the landlord tenant laws or the Wisconsin Administrative Code (ATCP 134) with regard to return of security deposit) then you may want to consider retaining an attorney to review your specific situation and provide you with legal advice.
#9 by Jon on July 13th, 2010
| Quote
Is it possible in Wisconsin to sue a fellow tenant in small claims court because of noise nuisance? (See: http://www.tenant.net/Other_Areas/Calif/misc/noise.html) If so, do you know if others have been successful in such an action? Thanks.
#10 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on July 13th, 2010
| Quote
Sure, it is possible to sue another tenant for a noise nuisance but I don’t know why you would want to when you could contact your landlord to assist you with this. The landlord would have the power to evict. You would only have the power to sue for money damages and possibly a restraining order/injunction.
I have not heard of anyone doing this so I do not know how successful it would be. It would seem to me that it would be very dependant on the specific facts (type of noise, time of day etc). I am also unsure how you could prove reasonable damages that could be supported in law.