<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tristan&#039;s Landlord - Tenant Law Blog &#187; Caselaw</title>
	<atom:link href="http://petriestocking.com/blog/category/caselaw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog</link>
	<description>Tristan&#039;s Landlord - Tenant Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:07:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Against Landlord in Maryland Arms Case and Chooses To Avoid Answering The Bigger Question</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/07/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-against-landlord-in-maryland-arms-case-and-chooses-to-avoid-answering-the-bigger-question/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/07/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-against-landlord-in-maryland-arms-case-and-chooses-to-avoid-answering-the-bigger-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:35:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rental Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenant Damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landlord Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landlord-Tenant Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=1665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wisconsin Supreme Court filed its opinion in this very important case on July 7, 2010.  While the majority opinion ruled against the landlord it did not go so far as to say that a landlord and tenant could not allocate liability for damage (when neither party was negligent in causing the damage) in their rental agreement. 
If [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/07/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-against-landlord-in-maryland-arms-case-and-chooses-to-avoid-answering-the-bigger-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landlords Should Not Play Games With Tenants&#8217; Security Deposits</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/07/landlords-should-not-play-games-with-tenants-security-deposits/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/07/landlords-should-not-play-games-with-tenants-security-deposits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ATCP 134]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security Deposit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenant Damage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=1059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new landlord-tenant decision has been reccomended for publication.  The case of Boelter v. Tschantz involves a tenant suing her past landlord for double damages and attorney’s fees for making improper deductions from her security deposit.  
 
The essential facts are as follows:
1.   Tschantz (the landlord) withheld money from the tenant&#8217;s security deposit.
2.   The key deductions that were made were: (1) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/07/landlords-should-not-play-games-with-tenants-security-deposits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oral Arguments On Important Landlord Case To Be Heard on January 6, 2010</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/04/oral-arguments-on-important-landlord-case-to-be-heard-on-january-6-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/04/oral-arguments-on-important-landlord-case-to-be-heard-on-january-6-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AASEW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenant Damage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=1034</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case of Maryland Arms L.P. v. Connell on Wednesday, January 6, 2010.  This is a very important case for landlords as the decision will affect a landlord&#8217;s ability to contract with his/her tenant.
You can learn what the case is about by reviewing my earlier posts [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2010/01/04/oral-arguments-on-important-landlord-case-to-be-heard-on-january-6-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MARYLAND ARMS CASE WILL BE REVIEWED BY WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/10/15/maryland-arms-case-will-be-reviewed-by-wisconsin-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/10/15/maryland-arms-case-will-be-reviewed-by-wisconsin-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:59:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rental Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rental Documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landlord and Tenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenant Damage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my May 28, 2009 post I wrote about the then recently published Wisconsin Court of Appeals case of Maryland Arms Limited Partnership v. Connell, 2009 WI App 87, __ Wis.2d __, 769 N.W.2d 145. 
This was an important case because a divided Court of Appeals held that a tenant could not be held responsible for the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/10/15/maryland-arms-case-will-be-reviewed-by-wisconsin-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LATE FEES &#8211; PART 1: WHAT AMOUNT CAN YOU CHARGE?</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/06/late-fees-part-1-what-amount-can-you-charge/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/06/late-fees-part-1-what-amount-can-you-charge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ATCP 134]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Late Fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/06/late-fees-part-1-what-amount-can-you-charge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>COURT OF APPEALS SAYS TENANT NOT LIABLE FOR FIRE DAMAGE</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/28/court-of-appeals-says-tenant-not-liable-for-fire-damage/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/28/court-of-appeals-says-tenant-not-liable-for-fire-damage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tenant Damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damage to Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court of appeals recently released its decision in the case of Maryland Arms Limited Partnership v. Connell. This decision has been reccomended for publication.  The issue in this lawsuit was whether the landlord or the tenant should be liable for damage to an apartment unit when the damage was not caused by the negligence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/28/court-of-appeals-says-tenant-not-liable-for-fire-damage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NEW PUBLISHED CASE ON EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE STAYS</title>
		<link>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/01/new-published-case-on-emergency-assistance-stays/</link>
		<comments>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/01/new-published-case-on-emergency-assistance-stays/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tristan R. Pettit, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergency Assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 799]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We will soon have a published Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision on the issue of emergency assistance stays in eviction actions that will assist us as landlords in removing the non-paying tenant.
Sec. 799.40(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes states that a court must stay an eviction action brought against a tenant that has applied for emergency [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/05/01/new-published-case-on-emergency-assistance-stays/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
