Upon Further Reflection, I Think The Governor Should Veto The Landlord’s Omnibus Bill

Mar 21

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Legislation, Notices, Rental Agreements, Rental Documents | 3 Comments

I spent several hours yesterday reviewing and thinking about the new Landlord’s Omnibus Bill that is to be signed into law today by Governor Walker at 4 pm.

I then spent hours of time trying to summarize the new law in yesterday’s blog post in an easy to read and understand format.

Since publishing the blog post yesterday I have a few more thoughts and concerns:

1.  AASEW Board member and friend Tim Ballering pointed out to me that he believes that the new law as written will allow for any violation of Chapter 704 to be considered an unfair trade practice, thus allowing a tenant to sue his/her landlord for double damages and attorney’s fees.

Here is the language at issue:

704.95 Practices regulated by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.

Practices in violation of this chapter may also constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair trade practices under s. 100.20. However, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection may not issue an order or promulgate a rule under s. 100.20 that changes any right or duty arising under this chapter.

In my prior post I did anticipate that this would allow for tenant’s and attorney’s to make arguments that any violation of Chapter 704 was an unfair trade practice and that concerned me.  But after speaking with Tim and thinking about this in more deeply, and re-reading the new law – I think this is a major concern.  So is this law saying that if a landlord improperly drafts or serves a 5 day notice that s/he can be sued by the tenant for double damages and attorney’s fees?  YES.

I believe that this is such a major problem that I will be contacting Governor Walker’s office today before 4 pm and asking him to veto the bill.

2.  The addition of the 8th Deadly Sin really concerns me.  My friend and past Wisconsin Apartment Association President John Fischer succinctly addresses the problem with in an email that he sent to many in the industry which is reproduced below:

When the Housing Task force was looking at blight, blight went beyond just condition of the property, but it also went to criminal activity.

There has been a proposal that various apartment associations have been working on that would make it easier to evict a tenant for criminal activity.  There is a “Crime Free Lease” program that started out west that is very popular with landlords and law enforcement.  A few communities have started working on this program here in Wisconsin, but the biggest hurdle is that the key tool of this program is a “Crime Free Lease Addendum”.  The problem is that this addendum is unenforceable under Wisconsin’s current laws.

The new law that is being signed by Governor Walker at 4 PM this afternoon (I have been invited to this private signing, but I want nothing to do with this) makes a large number of massive changes to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law.  One of the most significant appears to be an answer to our attempts to allow for eviction for criminal activity.  The new law would basically render a lease void if the lease contained language that criminal activity on a property would be a breach of the lease.

So there you have it.  My take on this new law — as well as many others in the industry — is this new law will cause more harm then good.  This is what happens when you try to rush legislation — people do not have time to consider all of the different angles — so I am planning on contacting Governor Walker and ask him to veto SB 446.  I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Thank you to tim Ballering and John Fischer for their thoughts, opinions, and guidance.

 

Landlord’s Omnibus Bill — with Amendments — To Be Signed Into Law Today

Mar 20

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Legislation, Rental Agreements, Rental Documents, State of Wisconsin | 7 Comments

One of the biggest pieces of pro-Landlord legislation in quite some time was passed by the Wisconsin Senate and adopted by the Assembly recently and will be signed into law by Governor Walker today.  Unfortunately some of the pro-Landlord provisions were amended, diluted, or removed.

I am certainly not denouncing this new law.  Many aspects of it will be very helpful to landlords.  I just wish that more time had been allowed — the bill was fast-tracked — to allow for more discussion, thought and input and allowing for more notice.  For instance, many of us in the rental industry were given one day advance notice before the public hearing on the bill which prevented many of us from attending.

I will attempt to summarize the new law in this post.  As this new law plays out in the “real world” I am sure that I will be devoting additional blog posts to each provision in more detail.

The proposed effective date of this new law is March 31, 2012.  So many of us will need to make some additions and/or modifications to our rental documents prior to that date.

 

Bankground of Legislation

The Landlord’s mnibus bill (Senate Bill 466) was put on the “fast track” for reasons unknown to me.  It was introduced on February 13, 2012 by Senator Lassee.  A Substitute Amendement 1 was offered by Senator Lassee on February 29, 2012.  Senator Waangard then offered the first amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 6th which was passed March 13th.  Senator Lassee then offered a second amendment to the Substitute Amendment on March 12th which was passed on March 13th.  The bill will be signed into law by Governor Walker today – March 21st.  Approximately one month from introduction to passage into law is very fast for the legislative process.

The key provisions of the new law are:

 

1.   Moratorium on Evictions

This provision of the original bill remained untouched by the Substitute Amendment and the two amendments to the Substitute Amendment.  The new law prohibits any municipality from imposing a moratorium on eviction actions.   If a municipality has a current ordinance that contradicts this new law it cannnot be enforced.

We now must hope that individual counties, courts, and commissioners adhere to this law.  While I don’t anticipate courts ignoring this new law, I do anticipate court’s continuing to use the “stay” provisions of sec. 799.44(3) to give tenants additional time to vacate during the holidays.  So while municipalities will no longer be allowed to impose moratoriums, courts can still prevent evictions during holidays, creating the same result.

 

2.   Severability of Rental Agreement Provisions

The original bill stated that any provision could be severed from the agreement.  So if a landlord inadvertantly included a provision that was found to be improper or retaliatory in nature it could be removed and the remainder of the agreement could be enforced.

The Substitute Amendment diluted the above considerably by adding that if a rental agreement contains one of the “7 Deadly Sins” set forth in ATCP 134.08, the inclusion of any of those provisions cannot be removed and will render the entire rental agreement void and therefore unenforceable.

Amendment 1 to the Substitute Amendment went a step further and added an 8th illegal provision that if included in a rental agreement will cause the rental agreement to be void.  The new illegal provision would include any language that allows a landlord to terminate a tenant’s tenancy if a crime is committed in or on the rental property, even if the tenant couldn’t reasonably have prevented the crime.

So in the end, the new law only allows the severability of certain rental provisions.  If your rental agreement contains one of the 7 prohibited provisions set forth in ATCP 134.08 or the new prohibited provision created by this new law, your rental agreement will still be be void and unenforceable.  Essentially, the new law takes the regulation ATCP 134.08 and codifies it into law.

More tragic is what the “8th Deady Sin” has most likely done to some other pro-Landlord legislation that I had hoped would become law — the “Crime-Free Lease Addendum” bill.  If you read my prior post on the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill you will see that this 8th Deadly Sin language effectively decapitates this proposed bill.  This is a major disappointment as I believe that had the Crime-Free Lease Addendum bill been passed it would have been the most significant piece of pro-Landlord legislation in years.  Instead the “odds and ends” Landlord Omnibus bill seems to have killed it.  Hopefully, I am wrong and it can be resurrected.

 

3.   Dispostion of Tenant’s Abandoned Property

Once again, the original version of this bill was awesome.  It stated that any personal property left behind by a tenant could be considered abandoned and disposed of immediately in the landlord’s discretion.

The Substitute Amendment modified the original bill by adding that any medical prescriptions and/or medical equipment left behind by the tenant must be held by the Landlord for 7 days.  The Substitute Amendment also added that written notice must be sent to the tenant (and any secured party) prior to disposing of any titled vehicles or mobile homes deemed abandoned.  I could live with both of those modifications.

However, the amendments to the Substitute Amendment added language that will require landlords to jump through a few hoops.  The new law requires that a landlord provide written notice to the tenant at the time of entering into the rental agreement, and at each renewal of the rental agreement, informing the tenant that the landlord will not hold any property left by the tenant and that such property will be deemed abandoned and will be disposed of.  Failure to provide this written notice to the tenant requires a landlord hold the abandoned property fpr a period of time as set forth in sec. 704.05 (5), Wis. Stats.

Essentially landlords will now be required to add a new language to their rental agreements – and any renewal agreements – advising tenants that any property left behind will be considered abandoned and can be disposed of.  Looks like there will be a revised Rental Agreement being sold at Wisconsin Legal Blank Co., in the near future : )

 

4.   Information Check-In Form

This is one of the provisions of the original bill that I didn’t care for.  A landlord will now be required to provide a standardized information check in sheet to each tenant that contains an itemized description of the premises.  The Substitute Amendment merely added that this form must be given to the tenant at the time of occupancy rather than at the time of signing of the rental agreement.

As I understand this law, this does not just mean that the landlord can give his new tenant a blank Information Check-In form to fill in — which many landlords are already doing.  Rather it means that the landlord must completely and thoroughly fill out the Information Check-In form to adequately describe the condition of the rental unit and give it to the tenant.  So if you are not thorough in your description of the renal unit this document could be used against you by the tenant, after the tenancy has ended.  This new provision of the law will clearly cause additional work for landlords and I fear could harm the less detail-oriented landlords out there when pursuing a tenant for damages to the unit or withholding portions of the tenant’s security deposit for damages.

 

5.   Holdover Damages Are Mandated

The new law requires that landlords be awarded holdover damages.  If a tenant stays in the rental unit beyond his tenancy, the landlord is now legally entitled to – at a minimum – double the daily rent for the time period after the tenancy ended (i.e. the notice expired) until the tenant actually vacates the unit.

This is a positive change because current law (sec. 704.27) only states that a landlord “may” be awarded holdover damages — and some courts would not award landlords these damages.  The new law says that a court “shall” award a landlord holdover damages, at a minimum.

 

6.   Withholding From A Tenant’s Security Deposit

The new law has merely codified the provision of ATCP 134.06(3), which states that a landlord is allowed to withhold the following from a tenant’s security deposit: (a) Tenant damage, waste or neglect of the premises, (b) Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, (c) Payment which the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent, (d) Payment which the tenant owes for direct utility service provided by a government-owned utility, to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant’s nonpayment, (e) Unpaid mobile home parking fees which a local unit of government has assessed against the tenant to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant’s nonpayment, (f) Other reasons authorized in the Nonstandard Rental Provisions.

The new law also adopts the portions of ATCP 134.06 which state that a landlord cannot withhold from a tenant’s security deposit for normal “wear and tear” or other losses which the tenant cannot reasonably be held responsible.

 

7.   Timing For Return of Security Deposit

The original bill indicated that in situations where the tenant broke the lease prior to the end of the term that the landlord need not return the security deposit or provide an accounting of how the security deposit was applied until 21 days after the lease term ended or within 21 days of a new tenant taking occupancy.  This langauge is a substantial improvement over current law as it allows a landlord to hold the security deposit until he is able to determine if any future rent will owed by the breaching tenant if the landlord cannot locate a new tenant to re-rent the property to.  I explain this issue in more detail in my earlier post on the Landlord’s Omnibus Bill.

The Substitute Amendment waters this down a bit.  The new law will now codifies ATCP 134.06(2)(a) and states that a landlord shall deliver or mail to a tenant the security deposit or itemization of how the security deposit was applied within 21 days after any of the following: (a) if the tenant vacates on the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the rental agreement terminates, (b) if the tenant vacates before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the rental agreement terminates or, if the unit is re-rented before the end of the rental agreement, then the date on which the new tenancy begins, (c) if the tenant vacates after the last day of the rental agreement, the date on which the landlord learns that the tenant vacated, (d) if the tenant was evicted, the date on which the writ was executed or the date that the landlord learns that the tenant vacated.

So the new law kept the good part of the original bill but by codifying ATCP 134.06(2)(a) the landlord must return a tenant’s security deposit or send out the itemization of how the security deposit was applied earlier than when the original bill stated in situations where the tenant was evicted.

 

8.   Disclosure of Code Violations

The original bill required that a landlord disclose to any prospective tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations prior to the signing of a rental agreement, accepting of a security deposit or accepting of earnest money.

The second Amendment to the Substitute Amendment modified the original bill and as a result the new law requires a landlord to disclose to a new tenant any uncorrected building code or housing code violations if the landlord has actual knowledge of the violation (rather than if the landlord had received notice of the violation from a housing code enforcement agency as under the original bill).

Specifically the new law requires the disclosure to the new tenant if the following four conditions are met: (a) landlord has actual knowledge of the violation, (b) the violation affects the rental unit or a common area, (c) the violation presents a significant threat to the tenant’s health or safety, (d) the violation has not been corrected.

 

9.   Request for Repairs

The orginal bill required that a tenant first notify a landlord in writing of any repair or maintenance issue, and then allow adequate time for the landlord to address the issue, before reporting the problem to the building inspector, elected official, or housing code enforement agency.  The Substitute Amendment removed this provision in its entirety so the law has not changed — tenants are allowed to call whomever they want to complain about maintenance issues without any requirement that they first notify the landlord of the problem.

 

10.   Acceptance of Past Due Rent

The new law states that if a landlord has filed an eviction against a tenant and the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant during the course of the eviction, that the court cannot dismiss the eviction solely based on the landlord’s acceptance of past due rent from the tenant.

I really like this provision of the new law becasue currently, many tenants and their attorneys argue that if an eviction is pending and a landlord accepts past due rent from a tenant, that the landlord’s acceptance of that rent has effectively “waived” the landlord’s right to proceed with the eviction.

 

11.   Tenant Remedies

The Substitute Amendment added that any violation of chapter 704, including the provisions of the new bill, may constitute an unfair trade practice which may allow the tenant to sue a landlord for double damages and attorney’s fees.

I don’t like this new provision of the law for one simple reason.  I believe it will be used by tenants and tenant’s attorneys to seek double damages and attorney’s fees whenever a landlord allegedly violates any provision of chapter 704, whether the violation is a true unfair trade practice violation or not.  Only the provisions of ATCP 134, which will be codified in ch. 704 under this new law, deal with unfair trade practices.  Nonetheless, I anticipate that we will see some very creative arguments by tenant’s and their attorneys as to why a tenant should be awarded double damages and attorney’s fees for violations of chapter 704 that are not unfair trade practice violations.

 

Now we will have to wait and see how this new law “plays out” in the real world of landlording.  Some of the key things everyone will need to address before March 31, 2012, when the law takes effect are:

1.  Make sure any rental agreement you enter into with a tenant after March 31, 2012, does not contain any language that would be in violation of the “8th Deadly Sin” which essentially means eliminating or modifying any language similar to that found in the Crime-Free Lease Addendum.

2.   Make sure to add language in your rental agreement, and any renewal documents, stating that any property left behind by the tenant will be considered to be abandoned and will be disposed of by the landlord without any further notice to tenant (except for medical prescriptions and medical devices, mobile homes and titled vehicles).

3.   Rename your Check-In / Check Out Sheet as “Information Check-In Sheet” and insure that you provide any new tenants with a completed copy of the form thoroughly documenting the condition of the rental unit.

4.   Disclose any code violations that you have actual knowledge of that may present a significant threat to the tenant’s health or safety before entering into a rental agreement or accepting a security deposit or earnest money.

Good Luck Everyone

ADDITION:  3/21/12 – Make sure you read my 3/21/12 post about why I now think this new law will actually hurt landlords more than help them

 

ADDED 4/11/12 — Here is the link to the new law.

 

ADDED 4/11/12 – Here is a link to an article I recently authored on the new law.

ADDED 4/11/12 – Here is a link to the newly revised Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 704 re: Landlord and Tenant

 

Tags: , ,

Milwaukee County Releases Dates That Eviction Court Will Be Closed in 2012

Mar 8

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Evictions, Milwaukee County | No Comments

Milwaukee County recently released all dates that Eviction Court will be closed in 2012.  Most of them are obvious closings for holidays but there are a few that are not holiday-related.

So make sure you don’t schedule a return date in eviction court for any of these days:

May 4, 2012

May 28, 2012

July 4, 2012

September 3, 2012

November 2, 2012

November 23, 2012

December 24, 2012

December 25, 2012

December 31, 2012

Tags: ,

New Landlords’ Omnibus Bill Being Debated In Madison

Feb 29

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Legislation | 12 Comments

On February 13, 2012 2011 Senate Bill 466 (more commonly referred to as the Landlords’ Omnibus Bill) was introduced by Senator Lasee and referred to the Committee on Insurance and Housing.  A companion bill was also introduced in the Assembly – 2011 AB 561.  A public hearing on the above bills was held on February 15, 2012.

The Landlords’ Omnibus Bill addresses numerous issues affecting landlord-tenant relations in Wisconsin and if passed will greatly assist landlords.

The bill proposes the following:

1.   Eliminates the ability of a municipality from enacting or enforcing any ordinance that imposes a moratorium on a landlord from evicting a residential or commercial tenant.

Such moratoriums have occurred in the past effectively preventing landlords from evicting tenants during the holiday season for instance.

2.   Allows for the severability of all rental agreement provisions and prevents an entire rental agreement from being declared unenforceable against a tenant — or void — because it contains an unenforceable or void provision.

If passed this will effectively render the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Bairl v. McTaggart moot.

3.   Allows a landlord to immediately dispose of any property abandoned by a departed tenant.

Currently according to Wis. Stats. sec. 704.05(5) a landlord can choose one of three options with regard to a tenant’s abandoned property, but all three involve a landlord jumping through hoops and/or holding the abandoned property for a period of time.

4.   Requires a landlord to disclose to prospective tenants if there are any uncorrected building code violations in the rental unit.

5.   Requires that a landlord provide a residential tenant with a standardized check-in sheet describing the condition of the property at the time of the tenant’s check-in.

6.   Requires that a landlord shall (i.e. MUST) recover damages for a tenant’s failure to vacate after his tenancy has been terminated.  The amount of damages shall be, at a minimum, double the rental value of the unit for the time that the tenant held over, but can be more.

Currently Wis. Stats. sec. 704.27 only says that a landlord “may” recover “holdover” damages.

7.   Creates a new statutory section that allows a landlord to withhold the following from a tenant’s security deposit: (a) tenant damage, waste or neglect, (b) unpaid rent, (c) utilities, (d) any other items listed in a Nonstandard Rental Provision document.

Currently the above is only contained in the Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 134.06(3) — which is a regulation and not law.

8.   Provides that if a tenant vacates before the end of his lease that a landlord will not have to return the tenant’s security deposit or send the teanant a security deposit itemization letter until 21 days after the lease ends or 21 days after the unit is re-rented.

Currently per ATCP 134.06(2) the landlord must return the security deposit or security deposit itemization letter within 21 days of the tenant “surrendering” the rental unit.  As this regulation is currently written there are some instances where a security deposit must be returned to a tenant that has broken a lease even though the tenant will be legally responsible for future rent but is not responsible for any rent within the 21 days after the tenant surrenders.

9.   Requires a tenant to notify the landlord in writing of any repair or maintenance problem before reporting the problem to a building inspector, elected public official or code enforcement agency.

Currently some tenants are calling DNS or other building code enforcement agencies alleging that they told their landlord of a maintenance or health and safety emergency in their rental unit and that the landlord is not making the necessary repairs – when this is not the case .  Tenants may do this in order to “get a landlord in trouble”  with an enforcement agency or to avoid paying rent.   As a result, some landlords are hearing about the maintenance issue for the first time when contacted by the building code agency.  This provision will hopefully eliminate such “he said – she said.”

10.   If a landlord has filed an eviction action against a tenant for non payment of rent and the landlord accepts past due rent from the tenant after the eviction lawsuit was filed, the eviction may not be dismissed  by the court solely because of the acceptance of rent.

Currently a landlord is in a catch-22 position.  If a landlord accepts payment of late rent (either partial past due rent or the full amount after the “cure” period has ended) the landlord risks the court deciding that the landlord “waived” his right to proceed with the eviction.  But if the landlord turns away past due rent offerred by the tenant after the “cure” period has passed, the landlord is essentially losing out on money owed to him that he will never see again.

 

Please be sure and call your state senator and state assembly person and urge them to vote in favor of the Landlord’s Omnibus Bill.

 

HUD Issues New Rule On “Discriminatory Effect” a.k.a Disparate Impact

Feb 20

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, Fair Housing / Discrimination, Legislation, Protected Classes, Screening Tenants | 3 Comments

HUD has issued a new Fair Housing “disparate impact” rule that may cause problems for landlords during the screening process.  The new rule creates a new provision entitled “Prohibiting Discriminatory Effects” which defines “discriminatory effect” as situations in which a facially neutral (i.e. not discriminatory) housing practice can become discriminatory if it actually or predictably has an effect on a group of persons that are members of a protected class.

The concern is whether or not this new rule will restrict landlord’s use of criminal background checks on prospective tenants.  Recently Pepsi Co. agreed to pay $3.13 Million to resolve allegations of hiring discrimination against African-Americans based on Pepsi’s use of the African-American’s arrest records.

This recent settlement when read in conjunction with HUD’s new rule causes concern regarding whether it will be considered discriminatory to use a person’s criminal arrest or conviction as a basis for rejecting a rental applicant when such use would result in members of a protected class being rejected as tenants.  For more on this issue and
please read Tim Ballering’s blog post entitled ‘Will Criminal Background Checks For Screening Be Restricted By Proposed Federal Rule?”

In light of this concern, the AASEW’s Executive Committee submitted the following comments to HUD:

The Apartment Association of Southeastern WI, Inc. is a trade association representing approximately 575 owners and managers of rental housing in the Metro Milwaukee area.

Our organization supports Fair Housing as well as community efforts to reduce the effects of crime within the neighborhoods that our members own and manage rental housing.

We are concerned that this proposed rule will restrict the  legitimate and necessary use of criminal arrest and conviction records in screening tenants to exclude those who will cause disruption and harm to other occupants, the neighborhoods those properties are located in, and to our properties.

Many communities in southeastern Wisconsin have “Nuisance Property Ordinances” that hold owners accountable for the misdeeds of their tenants.  For example Milwaukee’s Nuisance Ordinance does not require the conviction, nor the arrest of the tenant or their invitees, rather simply repeat law enforcement activity will trigger the enforcement provisions of that ordinance.

As part of your proposed rule property owners need “bright line” guidance, establishing what background screening criteria and methods will remain acceptable under this proposed rule as well as protections from potentially conflicting local requirements.

It would be inequitable, causing unnecessary costs and harm to property owners if such guidance is not provided in advance of the implementation and enforcement of this proposed rule.

Hopefully additional guidance will be provided.  If and when it is I will be sure to provide everyone an update.

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 | 2 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: , , , , ,

Last Chance To Sign Up For AASEW’s Landlord Boot Camp 2012

Feb 7

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

Hi Everyone:

We have had a very good response to our ads for the AASEW’s 4th Annual Landlord Boot Camp.  So much so that seats are quickly running out . . . or we may need to consider adding a second seminar shortly after the first.

If you are interested in attending this year’s Boot Camp on Saturday, Feb, 25th, I would strongly suggest that you register here.

I will be presenting this all-day seminar (8:30 am – 5:30 pm) at the Clarion Hotel located at 5311 S. Howell Avenue.

I will be teaching you everything you need to know legally to be a residential landlord or property manager.

Here are what past attendees said about Landlord Boot Camp.

We will cover topics such as:

-       How to screen applicants

-       How to avoid discrimination issues and better understand fair housing laws

-       How to draft legal screening criteria

-       How to legally reject an applicant

-       How to spot an applicant that is “fronting” for another applicant that won’t qualify to rent from you

-       What rental documents you should be using and why

-       The Residential Rental Practices (Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 134) and what can happen to you if you violate any of these 21 regulations.

-       What are the “7 Deadly Sins” and why you cannot include them in your rental agreement

-       What is the best way to evict a tenant and how to accomplish this

-       What are the different choices a landlord has when deciding what type of notice to serve a tenant

-       How to serve a tenant a notice so that service cannot be attacked in court

-       How to navigate your way through the judicial eviction process

-       What evidence you must present at an eviction trial to prevail

-       What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property

-       How to draft a legal security deposit transmittal letter

-       How to collect for past due rent and damage from an ex-tenant (or should you even bother pursuing this)

. . .  and much more.

All attendees will also receive a 100 page + manual (with lots of sample forms) to refer to in your business when the seminar has faded from your memory : )

Attendees will also receive a free lunch on the day of the seminar.

Cost is $159 for members of the AASEW, $249 for non-AASEW members (you can join the AASEW for an additional $1), $199 for members of any landlord or apartment association.  Past attendees will receive a discount for attending again.

Register online or by calling the AASEW at 414-276-7378.

I hope to see all of you there!!!!

 

T

Tags: , ,