Archive for category CCAP

Top 10 Pitfalls That Landlords Should Avoid

Apr 25

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, CCAP, Notices, Property Management, Rejecting Rental Applicants, Rental Agreements, Rental Documents, Screening Tenants, Seminars | No Comments

Those of you that missed the last AASEW membership meeting on Monday, April 15, 2013, missed a great meeting and a great presentation.  The featured presenter was John “Dr. Rent” Fischer, a Wausau-area landlord and rental property manager, who spoke to a packed house that Monday.  John’s presentation was dynamic, educational and at times pretty darn funny.

With John’s permission, I am providing you with a link to John’s handout from the meeting which was entitled “Top Ten Pitfalls That Landlords Should Avoid.”

Like any good Top 10 list (a la David Letterman), John presented these pitfalls in reverse oreder based on importance.  The pitfalls to avoid included:

10.  Mailing the 5 Day Notice

9.  Digging The Hole Too Deep

8.  Incomplete Applications

7.  Not Asking The Right People (about your rental applicant)

6.  Auto-Renewing A Lease

5.  14 Day Notice (or NOT)

4.  “Do-It-Yourself” Leases or Rental Forms

3.  Misuse of CCAP

2.  Carpet Cleaning

1.  That Lease is HOW LONG?

As John stated during his presentation, there are a lot of things that are beyond our control that make life as a landlord very difficult at times.  As such, we certainly do not want to make life more difficult for ourselves based on a lack of knowledge of landlord-tenant laws . . . unless we are masochists, that is.

The AASEW has another great meeting scheduled for May 20, 2013 at 7 pm at the Best Western Midway in Brookfield about “How To Finance Real Estate Transactions In The Current Economy.”

 

Tags: ,

CCAP Committee’s Recomendation To Change Wisconsin’s Expungment Laws Shot Down

Feb 14

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Legislation, Screening Tenants | 5 Comments

Last year Wisconsin’s Joint Legislative Council created a Special Committee On The Review of Records Access of Circuit Court Documents – what I affectionately referred
to as the CCAP Committee.  Landlords were very fortunate that in the end the committee made no recommendations to change or alter information on CCAP or limit its access by landlords or any other group.  The committee’s sole recommendation was to call for the liberalization of Wisconsin’s criminal expungement statute.

The proposed bill, if passed would have done the following:

1.  Defined what is meant for a court to expunge a court record (and yes, this did include removing any reference to the conviction from CCAP)

2.  Clarified that an expunged record may not be considered for employment or housing matters.

3.  Stated that a person may petition the circuit court at any time to expunge the following:

-  any court record of a person who was under the age of 25 at the time the crime was committed and who was found guilty of a forfeiture, misdemeanor, and certain (lessor) felonies, that are punishable by up to 6 years in prison.

- any court record of a person charged with an offense punishable by a forfeiture, misdemeanor, or felony in which all charges were dismissed or for which the defendant was acquitted AND the court determines that the person will benefit by the expungement and that society will not be harmed by the expungement.

So as you can see, the proposed bill would have negatively affected landlords in the screening process and if passed would mean that a landlord would find no record of the applicant having ever been charged and convicted of crime x, y or z (or charged and acquitted or charged and the later dismissal of the case), if the applicant had applied for and received an expungement.

It also would have meant that even if the landlord somehow learned of the conviction (or acquittal or dismissal) and the later expungement, that the landlord could not use that information when making a decision on whether or not to rent to that individual.

Furthermore, it would have meant that a landlord would be precluded from inquiring as to the existence of any expunged record from a rental applicant whether that question
be on the rental application itself or verbally when talking to the applicant.

Thankfully we do not have to worry about this proposed bill being passed as it never even got introduced.  In a notice dated January 20, 2012, the Director of the committee wrote to the members of the committee to inform them that their recommended bill was not approved for introduction by the Joint Legislative Council by a vote of 13 to 6.  While a petition can be circulated to have the matter reconsidered, I have not heard of that happening.

Tags: , , , , ,

CCAP Might Be Affected by Governor’s Proposed Budget

Apr 11

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Legislation | 1 Comment

Just when we thought CCAP would be left alone for awhile (after the dismantling of the CCAP Comittee) word comes of another potential attack on CCAP — this time it is financial.  The Wisconsin Law Journal recently published a post by Jason Smathers of the Associated Press indicating that court officials are concerned that CCAP may be affected if the governor’s proposed budget breaks up its funding.

The Governor’s proposed budget apparently would end a dedicated funding source for CCAP along with other state data management systems.  Currently CCAP receives $6 out of every $21.50 charged as part of the Justice Information Systems Surcharge included in most court filing fees, says the recent article.  Under the Governeor’s proposed budget, all fee revenue would go to the Department of Administration, which could decide how to allocate the money, thus ending any dedicated monies to CCAP.

The article explains that if the budget as written is passed, that CCAP may not be updated as frequently as it currently is.  Others, including the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, worry that the changes could result in CCAP being jeopardized.

The article indicates that the spokesperson for CCAP, feels that CCAP would have to consolidate or cut back on non-essential services and that CCAP would be on a short-list of cuts, if the budget goes through as written.  A spokesperson for the Governor says that a 10% cut is all that CCAP will face and that such a cut is the same type that all departments will face in order to balance the budget.  According to the article, the CCAP spokeperson indicated that no decision has been made with regard to making cuts to CCAP but that as a result of the proposed budget, there are no new plans for any expansion to CCAP.

CCAP averages 2- 3 million hits per day according to the article — with that type of popularity —  this is one user that hopes CCAP is left alone.

Make sure and read the full article here.

Tags:

CCAP Committee Disbands Without Any Major Changes Negatively Affecting Landlords

Mar 30

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Legislation | No Comments

On March 9, 2011, State Rep. Ed Brooks, the newly appointed Chair of the State of Wisconsin’s, Joint Legislative Council’s Special Committee on Review of Records Access of Circuit Court Documents (CCAP Committee) sent a memo to all members of the committee indicating that he had decided not to reconvene the committee for any additional meetings.

For the most part, landlords came out unscathed by the reccomendations of the CCAP committee.  While the committee considered many issues — the most troublesome being limiting access to CCAP and removing records of evictions that resulted in a dismissal —  the only issue that the committee is pursuing has to do with the ability of person to seek expungement of certain criminal records under certain situations.

It should be noted that while the committee voted to require that all persons whose CCAP records were accessed during a rental application check or or credit check be notified of this, the chairman of the CCAP committee rejected that suggestion and chose not to include it in the draft bill that was produced as a result of the committee’s work. 

The proposed bill that was drafted as a result of the CCAP committee’s reccomendation, proposed or clarifies the following:

1.  Defines what is means for a court to expunge a court record (i.e. yes, this does include removing any reference to the crime from CCAP)

2.  Clarifies that an expunged record may not be considered for employment or housing matters.

3.  States that a person may petition the circuit court at any time to expunge the following:

-  any court record of a person who was under the age of 25 at the time the crime was committeed and who was found guilty of a forfeiture, misdemeanor, and certain (lessor) felonies, that are punishable by up to 6 years in prison.

- any court record of a person charged with an offense punishable by a forfeiture, misdemeanor, or felony in which all charges were dismissed or for which the defendant was acquitted AND the court determines that the person will benefit by the expungement and that society will not be harmed by the expungement.

So if this proposed bill is eventually passed, an individual who was convicted of a crime, and who meets the criteria for expungement, could have his/her criminal record expunged including its removal from CCAP.   What does this mean for a landlord conducting a background check on that specific rental applicant?  It means several things:

1.  It means that the landlord would find no record of the applicant having ever been charged and convicted of crime x, y or z (or charged and acquitted or charged and the later dismissal of the case).

2.   It means that even if the landlord somehow learned of the conviction (or acquitall or dismissal) and th elater expungement, the landlord could not use that information when making a decision on whether or not to rent to that individual.

3.  It means that a landlord is precluded from inquiring as to the existence of any expunged record from a rental applicant whether tht be on the rental application itself or verbally when talking to the applicant.

So while the proposed bill, if passed as written, will make screening certain rental applicants more problematic, considering all of the items/issues that were up for discussion by the CCAP committee, landlords remained relatively unscathed.  Now let’s hope that the Wisconsin Supreme Court stays out of the fray . . .

Tags:

CCAP Committee Speaks Out About Clerks Removing Dismissed Charges From CCAP

Nov 30

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP | No Comments

I recently posted about the fact that some counties in Wisconsin were unilaterally deciding on their own to remove certain information on CCAP.  Specifically, a few counties were opting to remove charges that were dismissed or dropped as a result of plea deals in criminal cases from CCAP.

This practice concerned the committee that was covened to discuss issues related to CCAP in Madison.  The Wisconsin Law Journal’s blog reported on this issue as did the Associated Press’ Todd Richmond. 

Essentially the CCAP comittee decided that all Wisconsin court clerks must post all dismissed charges on CCAP and keep them there regardless of whether or not the charges were amended or dismissed. 

A state court advisor, Sara Ward-Cassady, explained that the problem regarding some courts removing  dismissed or amended criminal charges and others not removing the information, resulted from the state court system’s policies on how to handle new charges in a case.  She explained that if a disctrict attorney filed amended criminal charges in writing, that in that situation a clerk would renumber the new charges on CCAP and delete old charges from public view.  However in situations in which a district attorney would amend charges against a defendant orally, the clerks would not renumber the charges and the orginal charges would be kept.

Whether or not the above is/was the sole reason for the discrepency between counties with regard to removal of certain criminal charges on CCAP is not known.  I have a difficult time believing that this would be the only reason especially since only some counties were involved in this practice —- but that’s just my initial thoughts and I do not have all of the necessary facts. 

Nonethless, the CCAP committee voted unanimously to include (and keep) all criminal charges on CCAP in the future.

This decision bodes well for landlords should the courts ever attempt to remove stipulated dismissals in eviction cases from CCAP in the future.  Following the same reasoning  as the CCAP committee did regarding dismissed criminal charges above, one would think that the committee would feel the same regarding the removal of stipulated dismissals in civil cases from CCAP if that issue ever arises..

Tags:

State Rep. Marlin Schneider Loses Re-Election – What Does This Mean for CCAP?

Nov 9

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider | 12 Comments

State. Rep. Marlin Schneider lost his bid for re-election last week to Scott Krug for the 72nd Assembly District.  As many of you know I am not a big fan of “Snarlin Marlin.”  Besides being voted one of the worst legislators in Wisconsin byMilwaukee Magazine, he also was a persistent thorn in the side of landlords due to his wishes to either restrict information that appeared on CCAP or to restrict who could access such information.  I have blogged about Schneider more times than I care to admit, but each term he kept proposing new legislation to restrict CCAP.  He was like the Energizer Bunny — he just kept on going . . .  and going.  The rabbit’s batteries have finally been drained.

With Schneider gone from Madison, what does this mean for CCAP?  Will this valuable database of information finally be left alone?  Not a chance.  While Schneider was the loudest proponent for restricting CCAP there were other politicians in Madison that seemed to always jump on Schneider’s bandwagon. 

In fact there is already a committee fromed to debate the subect.  Called the Special Committee on Review of Records Access of Circuit Court Documents, this committee has already held meetings about CCAP restriction issues.  There is not one representative from the rental industry on this committee.  When the AASEW and other rental organizations attempted to be included on the committee they were told that there was no room.  When we asked to speak at an upcoming meeting of the committee to give our two cents, we were told that all speaker slots were filled.  Thus, the rental industry was relegated to submitting a written comment to the committee.

Retired Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Nancy Ettenheim wrote a very well argued opinion piece in the Journal Sentinel against the restriction of and/or the elimination of information on CCAP.  NOTE: It takes a long time for this link to load but it is worth the wait — all jsonline pages take forever for me to download.

Opponents of CCAP often argue that landlords use the information on CCAP to discriminate against potential tenants.  Such comments upset me because  – at least in Milwaukee – individuals that have been evicted or who have been sued for eviction even if the case was later dismissed, are not members of a protected class, and thus a landlord is legally entitled to refuse to rent to that person.  One cannot be discriminated against in a legal sense if they are not members of a protected class.

Ms. Ettenheim cogently addresses this argument in her opinion piece by pointing out that ”informed decisions” do not constitute discrimination.  Making a decision to not rent to someone based on their behavioral history is legitimate information upon which to base a decision.  Ms. Ettenheim was much more artful in her wording than I was and I will most likley be reiterating her statement on this issues as long as this debate continues.

The State Supreme Court has also weighed in on the topic of CCAP recently.  Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser has indicated that he thinks CCAP should be restricted to the public.

Here is another recent article about CCAP in which the author states that some counties are unilaterally removing data regarding criminal charges if those charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal.  Milwaukee is not one of the counties doing this.

So while Marlin Schneider is no longer around to propose new laws trying to keep public records out of the hands of the public, that does not mean that CCAP will be left alone.  With Schneider’s friends on the new special committee mentioned above, the Wisconsin Supreme Court jumping into the fray, and some counties deciding to unilaterally remove information regarding some criminal charges, we will continue to hear about attempts to curtail CCAP in the future.

Tags: , ,

The Topic of CCAP Restriction Is Back!

Sep 17

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 1 Comment

As the followers of my blog well know, many of my posts have centered on State. Rep. Marlin Schneider’s attempts to restrict CCAP access to the public.  Restriction of CCAP will greatly affect landlords as CCAP is one of the best avenues to conduct background checks on prospective tenants.  Here is a link to my prior posts on this topic.

Well, Rep. Schneider and his Special Commottee On Review of Records Access of Circuit Court Documents, have resurfaced.  On September 8, 2010 a notice of this special committee’s upcoming meeting was circulated.  The meeting will be held on September 15th and will address several topics, including Proposals Limiting Access to Consolidated Court Automation Programs Information Considered During 2009 Legislative Session, and several other topics intimately related to CCAP.

Here is a copy of the Notice that was circulated.

If you would like to read the actual reports and memos referenced in the above Notice click here and you will be directed to a page with all the necessary links.

Looks like we will have to prepare for another year of battling for our continued access to CCAP and the Open Records law in general.

Tags: , , ,