Archive for category Rental Agreements

Avoid Homemade Rental Agreements . . . Regardless of What the Tenant Resource Center Tells You

Jun 2

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Rental Agreements, Rental Documents | 13 Comments

I received a troubling call from a landlord last week.  This landlord had some questions regarding management of her rental properties and told me that she had previosuly called the Landlord-Tenant Resource Center for assistance.  I informed the caller that there is no such animal as the Landlord-Tenant Resource Center and that she had actually spoken with the Tenant Resource Center, a very pro-tenant organization.

The landlord continued to tell me that she has been using the Residential Rental Agreement sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co. Inc. for the last 10 years and has been very happy with it.  She advised me that when she mentioned this fact to the  person at the Tenant Resource Center that she was informed that she should stop using the WLB rental agreement immediately as it was vague and indefinite and would not stand up in court.  She was then told that she should  instead draft her own lease in the future.

As many of you know, I have been the author of Wisconsin Legal Blank’s residential rental agreement for the last 15 or so years, so this criticism was news to me.  I explained that I have been representing landlords throughout Southeastern Wisconsin for years and during those hundreds of court appearances, I have never had a tenant or a tenant’s attorney raise that argument.  More importantly, I had never had a court make a ruling the the WLB rental agreement was vague or lost a case based on the alleged vagueness of the WLB rental agreement.  I am also quite sure that if other lawyers or landlords had lost a case as a result of the wording of the WLB rental agreement, that either I or Wisconsin Legal Blank would have received an angry telephone call by now. 

I proceeded to tell this landlord about the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin and that it was an organization comprised of landlords and for landlords and that she should consider calling it in the future should she have any questions about the management of her rental properties, and not the Tenant Resource Center.  I also encouraged her to join the AASEW and believe that she is now a member.

What troubled me most about this call was not that someone was critical of the WLB rental agreement, but rather that the Tenant Resource Center advised this landlord that she would be better off drafting her own rental agreement in the future.  Those of you that have heard me speak on the topic of rental documents before know that one of my biggest concerns is when a landlord drafts their own rental agreement.  I would say that over 80% of the landlord-drafted rental agreements that I have reviewed over the years contain illegal clauses or provisions that would most likely render the rental agreement void in Wisconsin.

Inadvertently, landlords who draft their own rental agreements, often will include a provision that violates one of ATCP 134.08’s seven prohibited rental agreement provisions (“The Seven Deadly Sins”).  The result of making such a mistake is that  the landlord now has a rental agreement that is unenforceable against the tenant (but yet is still enforceable by the tenant against the landlord).  One needs to look no further than the 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court case of Baierl v. McTaggart, 245 Wis.2d 632, 629 N.W.2d 277, to see the disastrous results of using a poorly drafted lease.

In actuality, a landlord is better served by using a pre-printed rental agreement that has been drafted by a lawyer knowledgeable in Wisconsin residential landlord tenant law — and is reviewed regularly by that lawyer – then they are by drafting their own rental agreement or cutting and pasting together a conglomeration of  rental agreements  found on the internet.

Incidentally, many of the so-called state specific rental agreements that can be purchased on the internet also contain illegal provisions that will render them unenforceable in Wisconsin.  One of these online companies actually contacted me to draft a lease for them about 5 years ago, but when they balked at actually paying me for my work, I opted to not assist them.  Apparently they found an attorney who was willing to work for free but who — unfortunately for the unsuspecting landlords that purchase this company’s online rental agreements — did not know Wisconsin residential landlord-tenant law very well and included language that would violate ATCP 134.08.  There are similar issues with the rental agreements sold at Office Depot and Office Max.

I have been mulling over the possible intent of the Tenant Resource Center employee that advised this landlord to draft her own rental agreements in the future.  All I can come up with is that tenant advocates must be putting out this so-called “advice” hoping that uneducated landlords will follow it, thus increasing a tenant’s chance of prevailing in court due if the landlords’ self-drafted rental agreement contains an illegal provisions thus making it unenforceable against the tenant.

Call me jaded, but I can’t come up with any other reasonable motivation.

Tags: , ,

Free Landlord-Tenant Law Seminar In West Allis on March 31, 2011

Mar 25

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Rental Agreements, Rental Documents, Screening Tenants, Seminars | No Comments

I will be presenting a seminar for the West Allis Landlord Training Program on Thursday, March 31, 2011 from 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm.  This seminar is sponsored by the West Allis Police Department and is open to the public at no cost.

I will be speaking on two specific areas:

1.  Rental Documents – specifically what rental documents you should be using with your tenants to protect yourself such as: Rental Agreement, Nonstandard Rental Provisions, Rules and Regulations, Rental Application, Pet Agreement, Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Forms, Carbon Monoxide Detector Forms, Check-In & Check-Out forms and more.

2.  Screening Prospective Tenants – this topic will include discussion of the federal and state Fair Housing laws, written screening criteria, credit checks, CCAP, and how to reject an applicant.

The Seminar will be held in the West Allis Municipal court room which is located at 11301 W. Lincoln Avenue in West Allis.  Seating is limited so I would encourage anyone that is interested in attending to arrive early to insure a seat.

A detailed outline on the above topics will be given to each attendee and Wisconsin Legal Blank Co. will be on hand  with their landlord tenant law forms available for purchase.

Hope to see everyone there.

New Rental Agreement for Self-Service Storage Units Now Available at Wisconsin Legal Blank

Oct 11

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Rental Agreements, Rental Documents, Self-Service Storage Units | No Comments

I have recently drafted a Self-Service Storage Unit Rental Agreement that is now available and being sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc.  Additionally I have drafted two seperate default notices that should be sent to the tenant who has breached the rental agreement for the self-service storage unit.  The two default notices contain differernt language as required per Wisconsin’s new law regarding self-service storage facilities and units.

Self-service storage facilities in Wisconsin are governed by sec. 704.90, Wis. Stats., which is the chapter that deals with landlord tenant relationships.  While a self-service storage unit involves a landlord tenant relationship, the laws governing these facilities and units is very different than the laws governing an apartment unit or other rental property.

Sec. 704.90 is specific to self-service storage facilities and units.  It does not apply to storage units that are incidental to the rental of a apartment unit.  For example, sec. 704.90 (and the new forms that I have drafted) would not be used if a tenant is renting an apartment unit that includes the use of a storage unit in the basement.

The laws regarding self-service storage units were significantly changed by 2009 Wisconsin Act 380 (2009 Assembly Bill 707) which is the reason that I decided to draft the new rental agreement and notice of default forms.

Some of the changes in the new law include the following:

1.     The new law makes current statutory provisions governing self-service storage facilities also apply to self-service storage units.  A self-service storage units include a box, shipping container, or trailer that is leased by a tenent primarily for use as a storage space whether the unit is located at a facility owned or operated by the owner or at a locations designated by the tenant.  This change in the law was made to address the new PODS type units that are being leased to people who store the units off-site from the self-service storage facility.

2.   The new law requires that if a self-service storage facility rental agreement includes a provision that limits the value of the property stored, that the clause must be printed in bold or underlined type of the same size as the rest of the agreement.  The limit listed in any agreement is presumed to be the maximum value of the property stored in the unit.

3.     After the termination of the rental agreement, an owenr may deny the tenant access to the personal property remaining in the leased space until the tenant redeems the property by paying the owner any rent and other charges that are due. 

4.   The owner may sell the property after providing two notices to the tenant, and if the tenant does not redeem the property within fourteen days after the date of the second notice. 

5.   The new law provides that the second notice of default may be sent via certified mail or by first class mail with a certificate of mailing.

6.   If the tenant does not redeem the property, then an owner who wishes to sell the property, must publish an advertisement of the sale once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation where the self-service storage facility is located.

6.     The new law eliminates the old requirement that an owner’s advertisement of the sale of the abandoned property include the nubler of the space where the property was located.

7.     The old law required that any sale of the abandoned property be conducted in a “commercially reasonable manner.”  The new law states that the sale must meet one of the following requirements: (a) the property is offerred as a single parcel or multiple parcels at a public sale attended by three or more bidders, (b) the property has been offerred to at least three persons who deal with the type of personal property offerred for sale and is sold in a provate transaction, or (c) the property is sold in another manner that is commercially reasonable.

8.   The new law allows the owner or operator of the self-service storage facility to do the following with the property if they do not want to sell the property, if the value of the property is less than $100 and proper notice is provided: (a) donate it to a non-profit organization, (b) dispose of it in a solid waste facility, (c) recycle it, (d) remove it in another reasonable manner.

9.   The old law allowed “any person” to bring a civil lawsuit for a violation of the self-service storage facility laws — this resulted in a very well known 2008 lawsuit entitled Cook v. Public Storage Inc., in which the owner/operator was sued by the parents of a tenant, who happened to also store some of their belongings in the tenant’s self-service storage units.  The new law allows only the “lessee” (tenant) to bring such a lawsuit.

For those of you owning and operating self-service storage facilties and units I hope the new rental agrrement, Notice of Default #1, and Notice of Default #2, prove helpful in assisting that you follow the applicable laws.

Tags: , ,

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Against Landlord in Maryland Arms Case and Chooses To Avoid Answering The Bigger Question

Jul 14

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Caselaw, Rental Agreements, Tenant Damage | 6 Comments

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 you would like to review the specific facts of the case and the arguments made by both sides please revisit my posts of May 29, 2009 and October 15, 2009.

The Court was split, so there is a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.  So if you are brave enough you can read all three opinions which encompass 37 pages and can be read here.  The Wisconsin Law Journal provides a very good summary of the decision if  you are not feeling ambitious enough to read all 37 pages.

As an attorney who primarily represents landlords, I must admit that I had a mix of emotions after I finished reading the opinion.  I was upset that the majority opinion held that the landlord should be responsible for damage to his rental property that was caused by the tenant leaving her hair dryer plugged in overnight.  I was also frustrated by the fact that the major issue in the case — whether or not a landlord and tenant can allocate liability through the language of the rental agreement — was not addressed by the majority opinion, thus providing little guidance to landlords in the future.  On the other hand I was also grateful that the majority decided to “pass the buck” and not address this issue becasue, quite frankly, if the majority had addressed that issue, I believe they would have said “no” a landlord cannot allocate liability on a tenant for damage that was not casued by the negligence of the tenant.

The majority opinion held that the landlord should be held responsible for the damage because the rental agreement (which was drafted by the landlord) was ambiguous when it came to who would be held liable for damage in a situation where neither the tenant not the landlord were negligent in causing the damage.  The majority rested its decision on a very well established principle of contract law that any ambiguity in a contract  should be construed against the drafter of the contract.  The majority said that since the contract terms did not unambiguously state that the tenant would be liable for the damage under the specific fact situation in this case, then the landlord should be liable for the damage.

The majority declined to address the very important issue that the AASEW and other landlord associations were concerned about in this case — whether a landlord can add a lease provision assigning liability to a tenant for damages (when the damages is not caused by the tenant’s negligence) or whether doing so would be a violation of Wis. Stat. sec. 704.07.  So essentially the “Supremes” chose to dodge the issue, which in effect means that nothing prevetns a landlord from allocating liability to a tenant for such damage in a rental agreement under similar facts.  What this also means is that should a landlord make such an allocation and hold a tenant responsible for similar damage, the tenant can argue that such contract language violates sec. 704.07, and the courts will have no guidance as to how to rule. 

It was a missed opportunity by the Supremes to add to Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant law.  However, based, on the tortured analysis (my view) of the majority opinion, if the court had addressed the allocation of liability issue it would have most likely resulted in a holding that would not allow a landlord and tenant to allocate liability — which would have been even worse.  So in the end maybe it was best that the issue was not addressed.

Justice Ziegler, who agreed with the majority opinion, wrote a concurring opinion to add that  her view of Wisconsin law is that a landlord and tenant are not prohibited from allocating liability by contract as long as it is done clearly (i.e. no ambiguity) and is otherwise enforceable by law.

The dissenting opinion, which begins on page 18 and is authored by Justice Prosser, stated that not only are a landlord and tenant allowed to allocate liability in a rental agreement but that that is exactly what the parties to this lawsuit did and that the majority opinion is ignoring the clear meanign of the language in the rental agreement.  The dissent did not find the lease to be ambiguous at all.  The dissent, quite correctly in my opinion, points out the absurd nature of the majority opinion by saying that ”imposing responsibility on the landlord for damage caused by a tenant, when the landlord cannot control risks created by the tenant” (like keeping a hair dryer plugged in overnight) defies economic logic.

The dissent, being very pragmatic, actually takes the time to address what the practical effect the majority decision will have on landlords by stating, “When the landlord is made responsible for abnormal damages that is actually caused by tenants, the landlord must spread the resulting expense among all tenants by charging higher rent.  When a tenant is made liable for damage that is caused by that tenant, the landlord is better able to control rent and the tenant has an economic incentive for prudent stewardship of the premises.” 

Which of the three opinions seem more reasonable and logical to you?

Tags: , , ,

BLOG COMMENT: What If Tenant Does Not Give You Proper Notice To Vacate? . . . and Other Questions.

Apr 5

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Rental Agreements | 4 Comments

I recently received a very good question through my blog but because it was posted under my “About The Author” section I don’t think enough people would see it so I decided to reprint it as a post.

THE QUESTION:

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.

THE ANSWER:

Thank you for your kind words and I am happy to hear that my blog is helpful to you.

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.  The tenant will also be responsible for paying the costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent the unit.  The applicable statute dealing with this issue is Sec. 704.29, Wis. Stats.

If you have a term 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 then when a tenant breaks a lease and moves out early.  In this situation the tenant completed the full term and actually did not breach the lease.  Because it was a lease for term and the tenant completed the full term of the lease the landlord cannot hold the tenant responsible for an additional 3 month’s of rent (over and above the lease term) just becasue the tenant failed to give the 90 day notice — the reason being that the tenant did complete the term of the lease.  Such a notice provision in lease is legal and are included to assist the landlord so that the landlord will be alerted by the tenant if the tenant 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 the landlord’s job to determine whether or not a tenant intends to enter into a new lease after the full term of the initial lease is completed.

It is good practice for a landlord to send a reminder to the tenant prior to the 90 days notice period (or whatever notice is set forth in the rental agreement) 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 them within X days if they intend to stay for another term.  If the tenant does not return the newly signed lease to the landlord within the requisite time period then the landlord may choose to follow up with a telephone call to the tenant if s/he wants to but it is not necessary and the landlord may assume that the tenant will not be renewing the lease and the landlord should began to advertise and make efforts to re-rent.

To try and hold the tenant responsible for an additional 90 days rent beyond the completed rental term because the tenant did not provide the landlord with the 90 day notice that they would be vacating at the end of their lease would be in violation of both ATCP 134.09(3) and Sec. 704.15, Wis. Stats., regarding “automatic renewal clauses.”

To address the second 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 month’s of rent is less then $5,000 you would file that collection action in small claims.  See sec. 799.01(d), Wis. Stats.  If you were seeking damages greater than $5,000 then you would need to file suit in large claims and pay the higher filing fee.

Addressing the next 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.  Sec. 799.06(2), Wis. Stats.  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.

For additional discussion on this topic please refer to my May 15, 2009 post, July 21, 2009 post, July 30, 2009 post, and Sept. 2, 2009 post.

Your final question, asks if there is a time limit in which you must file a lawsuit against your tenants for failure to give the requisite 90 day notice to you prior to vacating.  As I mentioned above, depending on your specific fact situation and the type of rental agreement you are using, you may not even have a claim against your tenant for the 3 month’s rent.  However, assuming you do have a claim it would be a claim for breach of contract and the statute of limitations for breach of contract claim is 6 years from the date of the breach.

I hope that helps

T

NEW LANDLORD FORM NOW AVAILABLE REGARDING TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAWN CUTTING AND SNOW REMOVAL

Mar 23

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Rental Agreements, Rental Documents | 5 Comments

I have recently completed drafting a new form for landlords to use that is now being sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., Inc.

Addendum To Residential Rental Agreement: Responsibility for Yard Care and Exterior Upkeep

Form #985 is entitled Addendum To Residential Rental Agreement.  This document sets forth a tenant’s responsibility for yard care and exterior upkeep of the rental property.  This form should only be used if the landlord is renting out a single-family home or a duplex and wishes the tenant to be responsible for yard care and exterior upkeep (such as snow and ice removal and the cutting the lawn).  This form should not be used for multi-unit apartment buildings. 

This document addresses the following tenant responsibilities:

1.   Snow and ice removal

2.   Cutting of grass

3.   Disposal of garbage

4.   Disposal of recyclables

5.   Removal of litter/debris

6.   Special pick-up of large items

7.   Exterior lighting

8.   Porches

9.   Windows

10.   Damage to exterior

11.   Parking of vehicles

12.   Washing of vehicles

13.   Swimming/wading pools

14.   Watering of grass, and

15.   Yard tools

This form states that if the tenant fails to perform any of the listed duties that the landlord can choose to do the work  himself or herself or hire someone to complete the work and that the tenant will be responsible for repayment of any and all associated costs.  Additionally the form indicates that failure to complete the listed duties is a material breach of the rental agreement and may be grounds for eviction.

This addendum is a nonstandard rental provision document (refer to ATCP 134.06(3)(b)) and as such it allows a landlord to deduct the actual costs incurred by the landlord (should the tenant fail to complete the duties) from the tenant’s security deposit.

It is important to remember that form #985 is just that — a form.  Some of the paragraphs may not be applicable to your specific situation.  Some landlords may decide that they do not want the tenant to perform some of the listed work.  In that case the landlord should cross out the provisions that are not applicable and then initial the change and have the tenant also initial the change. 

There will be other situations where a landlord may want the tenant to be responsible for additional duties which are not listed in the form.  In that case the landlord should attach a separate sheet which will list the additional duties.  This attachment should clearly be labeled as page two of the Addendum To Residential Rental Agreement: Responsibility for Yard Care and Exterior Upkeep and should also be signed and dated by all adult tenants.  As always, if you are unsure whether any additional provisions that you add to this form are allowed under Wisconsin landlord-tenant law, you should have those additions reviewed by an experienced landlord-tenant law attorney.

Since many landlords of duplexes and single-family rentals do require their tenants to perform yard care and other related duties, it is my hope that this form will assist landlords in specifying in writing what duties the tenant will be responsible for and what will happen if the tenant shirks those responsibilities.

I would like to thank Attorney Heiner Giese for his review and suggestions to this form.

Tags:

Wisc. Legal Blank Co.’s New & Improved Residential Rental Agreement Is Now Available.

Feb 7

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Rental Agreements, Rental Documents | No Comments

I wanted to alert anyone that is currently using the Residential Rental Agreement that is sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co, Inc. (and even those of you who don’t : ) that the new and improved version is now available ans is being sold at WLB.

I completed the revisions to the updated Agreement last week.  The new version indicates a revision date of 1/4/10 whereas the prior version had a revision date of 1/31/07.

Some of the changes include:

1.   I retitled the document “Residential Rental Agreement” — believe it or not I have seen this document improperly used for commercial properties (Note: I will be drafting a form Commercial Lease in the ensuing months for WLB).

2.   I attempted (and think that I succeeded) in removing all legalese from the Agreement in order to make it more understandable for everyone.  So you no longer need to read “heretofore” “therein” “hereof” and wonder to yourself “what the heck does that mean?”

3.   I eliminated some of the “fill in the blank” sections that were causing confusion for some landlords and property managers.  The eliminated sections were not really necessary anyways – so they’re outta there.

4.   I retitled the “Guarantee” section to “Co-Signer / Guarantor” is an attempt to make it more clear that landlords/managers do not need to have the resident/tenant sign this section.  This section need only be signed by individuals (other than the tenant) that are guaranteeing that the tenant will meet all of the conditions in  the Agreement.  For example:  a parent would sign as a co-signer/gurantor for a student tenant that is not employed and/or does not have sufficient credit.

5.  I added a sentence that states that if the Landlord provides the Tenant with an Inspection Checklist (a.k.a. “Check-In/Check-Out” form) and the Tenant fails to return it to the Landlord within seven days after the start of the tenancy, that the Tenant will be considered to have accepted the Premises without any exceptions.”

6.   I deleted the fill in the blank lines relating to “Special Provisions” relating to pets.  The purpose for doing this is to alert landlords that there is a separate docuement entitled “Pet Agreement” that they should be using if they are allowing tenants to keep pets  — rather then trying to cram all of that info into 2 lines on the Rental Agreement.”  By being forced — “forced” may be too strong of a word — to use the Pet Agreement a landlord will also notice (on the Pet Agreement form) that s/he may charge the tenant a refundable pet fee and/or a non-refundable pet fee and it will also make the landlord clearly define the specific pet that is being allowed to reside at the Premises.

7.   I clarified the section that dealt with the type of notice that a tenant must provide the Landlord prior to vacting.  The goal was to make this notice process more understandable for the tenant (and therefore less of a headache for landlords).  This revised section will also serve as a default provision should the landlord fail to include another (i.e. longer) notice provision for the tenant.  The section includes both a notice provision for month to month tenants and tenants that are under a lease for term.

8.   I added a section regarding abandoned personal property.  The section states that any personal property that is left at the Premises after the Tenant has vacated will be considered to have no value and to have been abandoned by the Tenant and therefore it may be disposed of by the Landlord, unless the Tenant notifies the Landlord otherwise – in writing – prior to vacating.

9.    I added a new provision regarding a tenant’s responsibility for maintaining and paying for utilities through the end of theiir tenancy or until the last day that the tenant is responsible for paying rent.

10.   I included a new section that defines late fees, security deposits, utility charges and any other penalty or fee set forth in the Agreement as “rent” – much like is done in commercial leases.

11.   I added a provision stating tha the landlord/manager represents that there are no code violations or other conditions affecting the habitability of the Premises unless indicated otherwise in writing.

12.   I added a new section that clarifies who will be responsible for any extermination costs of the Tenant’s unit and under what circumstances.

13.   I included a provision recommending that all Tenants purchase renter’s insurance and explaining why this is reccomended.

14.   I removed the Consent to Assignment or Sub-Lease section.  I removed this section to reinforce the fact that landlords of residential rental properties would be better protected by entering into a new Rental Agreement (and other rental documents) with a new individual that moves into the Premises after a prior tenant was evicted or vacated the unit, rather then to just assigning or sub-leasing the Premises and continuing to use the old tenant’s rental documents.  While this will result in more paperwork for the landlord, the protections that it will provide more than outweigh the additional paper.  A Landlord in this situation should have the new tenant sign all new rental documents especially a new Lead-Based Paint Disclosure statement (and provide the new tenant with a new EPA pamphlet) and have the new tenant sign and/or initial a new Nonstandard Rental Provisions document rather then just relying on the old documents that the prior tenant signed.  Trust me, if you end up in a court battle (i.e. eviction lawsuit or defending a claim that you violated ATCP 134) or facing the wrath of the EPA, you will be thankful that you used the extra paper.

15.   Finally, I cleaned up all of the mispellings, improper grammar, and other typos  — at least I think I did.

I would reccomend that you toss out any old versions of the Rental Agreement that you may have in your possession and the next time that you renew or rent out a rental unit that you use this new and improved Residential Rental Agreement form.

Tags: