Posts Tagged ATCP 134

The Consequences of A Landlord Violating Wisconsin’s Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134)

Apr 28

Posted by Admin in ATCP 134 | 3 Comments

The Residential Landlord Tenant relationship is controlled by two main areas of law: (1) Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and (2) the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP 134 entitled “Residential Rental Practices.”

ATCP 134 sets forth 21 regulations that a landlord must follow in a residential landlord tenant context.   ATCP 134, under its orginal name “Agriculture 134,” was first introduced in May of 1980.  “Ag 134″ was then renamed ATCP (Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection) 134 in 1993.  In 1999 there was a complete overhaul of ATCP 134 which resulted in the 21 regulations that we have today.

If you are a landlord and are not familiar with ATCP 134 please take the time to read the chapter — it is only 5 pages long and is relatively easy to understand — it must have been drafted by someone other than a lawyer or government employee  : )

The main remedy available to a tenant that is damaged by a landlord violating ATCP is what is referred to as the “private attorney general” provision.  Essentially, the Wisconsin Statutes allow a party who is injured by a violation of ATCP 134 to “step into the shoes” of the State Attorney General to privately prosecute such violations.

This private attorney general provision, specifically sec. 100.20(5), allows an injured tenant to recover double damages and reimbursement of their actual attorney’s fees against a landlord that has violated ATCP 134.

The State has enumerated several public policy reasons for allowing the private attorney general provision in the residential landlord tenant context, such as:

 1.   It encourages an injured tenant to enforce his/her rights even if the amount of damage is small and the aggrieved tenant does not have the “means” to pay for their own attorney.

2.   A tenant who sues for a violation of ATCP, while clearly enforcing his/her rights, will also be enforcing the public’s rights.

3.   By allowing a tenant the ability to more easily pursue such claims against his/her landlord, it will deter impermissable conduct by landlords and thus strengthen the bargaining power of tenants.

4.   It provides a necessary backup to the State, as the State does not have the time or resources to pursue lawsuits against all landlords who violate the regulations of ATCP 134.

Whatever your thoughts are about the above-reasoning, it is imperative that you become knowledgable about the 21 regulations contained in ATCP 134.  During the course of consulting with landlords and property managers in my job as an attorney, I am always surprised by the number of landlords that have never heard of ATCP 134.

Tags: , , ,

Self-Help Evictions (or Why You Should Not Remove The Roof In An Attempt To Evict Your Tenant)

Oct 29

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Evictions, Self-Help Evictions | No Comments

I apologize for the delay in drafting a new post but this has been a crazy week with two trials in the early part of the week and another one tomorrow  (all tenants fighting evictions and none of these trials have been or will be easy).  But enough with the excuses . . .

I saw a recent article about a landlord in Lusaka, Zambia (Africa) that actually attempted to evict his tenants by physically removing the roof (which was made of iron sheets) to the home.  The article states that the landlord “may not have followed the proper procedures to evict the tenant.”  No kidding . . . . really, I’m sure it would be illegal to remove the roof to a rental unit in order to evict a tenant in any country (but I am just guessing).

I’m certainly no expert in Zambian landlord-tenant law but I do know that in Wisconsin, if a landlord tried attempted to evict a tenant by removing the roof to the rental property, that the landlord would be opening himself/herself up to liability for engaging in what is commonly referred to as “self-help eviction.”

Self-help eviction is a genreal term that refers to any attempt to remove a tenant from a rental property other than through the judicial eviction process and the use of the Sheriff.

In Wisconsin, the only way to legally remove a tenant (that refuses to leave) is through the judicial eviction process.  Once the landlord obtains a judgment of eviction and is issued the writ of restitution, should the tenant still fail to vacate the unit, the only legal avenue that the landlord has to reclaim his/her real estate in Milwaukee County is to execute the writ with the Sheriff.

Yes, you heard me correctly! Even if the court has ordered the tenant out of the rental unit, and the tenant intentionally ignore the court’s order, the landlord still cannot force the tenant out of his/her property.  The landlord must engage the services of the Sheriff to forcibly evict the tenant.

It is illegal in Wisconsin for a landlord to engage in self-help eviction.  Examples of self-help eviction would include the following:

1.   Changing the locks to the rental unit.

2.   Cutting off all utilities to the unit.

3.   Removing the outside door to the rental unit.

4.   Taking all of the tenant’s belongings and putting them out on the curb.

5.   Harassing the tenant in order to make them leave.

6.  Removing the roof to the rental unit . . .

Wisconsin Administrative Code, ATCP 134.09(7), entitled Prohibited Practices, states that, “No landlord may exclude, forcibly evict or constructively evict a tenant from a dwelling unit, other than by an eviction procedure specified under ch. 799, Wis. Stats.”

ATCP 134.08 (1), which lists prohibited rental provisions, also prohibits a landlord from including a clause in his or her rental agreement that authorizes the eviction of a tenant from a unit other than by the judicial eviction proceeding set forth in Ch. 799, Wis. Stats.

Many municipalities, such as Milwaukee and Madision, also have local ordinance that also prohibit self-help evictions.

While Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes does not specifically prohibit non-judicial forms of eviction, its legislative history states that the procedures for eviction set forth in Ch. 704 and Ch. 799 (Small Claims Procedure) are the exclusive means of conducting an eviction.

I believe (and hope) that most landlords understand that they cannot forcibly remove a tenant from a rental unit on their own.  I think that most landlords no that if a tenant will not leave voluntarily that they must file an eviction lawsuit against the tenant.  What I think many landlords do not understand however, is that after they have filed the eviction and obtained a judgement of eviction ordering the tenant to vacate the rental property, that if the tenant still refuses to leave, that the only legal avenue the landlord has is to execute the writ of restitution with the Sheriff.  This understandably upsets landlords because it results in additional time, delay and money.  In Milwaukee County it costs $125 to hire the Sheriff to evict the tenant and requires the posting of approximately $350 with a moving company. 

Despite this additional cost and aggravation, this is the law in Wisconsin.  I would alert any landlord that is thinking of skipping this part of the eviction process, and resort to self-help, to strongly reconsider.

The penalties for engaging in a self help eviction are sever.  A violation of ATCP 134, which precludes self-help eviction, allows the tenant to sue the landlord for double his/her damages and recover his/her attorney’s fees.

So if you find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit for self-help eviction you could end up paying the tenant’s damages times two, the tenant’s attorney’s fees, all associated court costs, along with your own attorney’s fees.  Trust me, I have defended several landlords in lawsuits alleging self-help eviction and the outcome can be very expensive.  Even if the landlord prevails in the end and a judge or jury decides that there was no self-help eviction, the costs in time and attorney’s fees to defend against the lawsuit can be substantial.  Don’t risk it.

I always encourage my clients to error on the side of caution.  If you are unsure whether or not a tenant has vacated the unit then you should file an eviction lawsuit and retain the services of the Sheriff to return the property back to you.  If you use the Sheriff’s services and the Sheriff removes the tenant, or otherwise determines that the unit has been abandoned, should a tenant later decide to file a lawsuit for illegal eviction s/he will need to sue the Sheriff, not the landlord.  Using the Sheriff is a big CYA.

So the moral of this blog post is simple — if you want your tenant to leave your rental property you should not remove the roof of the rental unit : )

Tags: ,

SECURITY DEPOSIT TRANSMITTAL LETTERS: How To Draft A Legal 21-Day Letter

Mar 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Security Deposit | 33 Comments

Security deposit withholding issues are the second most litigated area in landlord tenant law after evictions.  If a landlord makes improper deduction from a tenant’s security deposit, pursuant to ATCP 134 and §100.20, Wis. Stats., the tenant may sue the landlord for double damages and attorney’s fees.  There are numerous published Court of Appeals decisions in Wisconsin dealing with this exact issue.  I would like to offer a few suggestions to landlords which will hopefully keep you from making any improper security deposit deductions.

First, we need to address some basics . . .

A security deposit is defined as “any payment that is given to a landlord as security for the performance of the tenants obligations under the rental agreement.” ATCP 134.01(11).

ATCP 134.06(2), states that “within 21 days after a tenant surrenders the rental property, the landlord shall deliver or mail to the tenant the full amount of any security deposit held by the landlord, less any amounts properly withheld by the landlord.”

If you would like to know what a landlord may legally deduct from a tenant’s security deposit you will want to read my Jan. 17th post.

ATCP 134.06(4), states “If any portion of a security deposit is withheld by the landlord, the landlord shall, within the time period and manner prescribed in sub.(2) – 21 days — deliver or mail to the tenant a written statement accounting for all amounts withheld.  The statement shall describe each item of physical damages or other claim made against the security deposit, and the amount withheld as reasonable compensation for each item or claim.”

I will refer to this written statement interchangeably as either the “security deposit transmittal letter” or the “21-day letter.”

According to ATCP 134 all prepaid rent in excess of one month is legally considered to be a security deposit.  So if you require a new tenant to pay first and last months rent plus a security deposit, legally the security deposit will also include the last month’s rent

Essentially a landlord must either return a tenant’s security deposit or send the tenant an itemization of how the tenant’s security deposit was applied within 21 days after the tenant surrenders the premises.  This is mandatory.  No matter what the situation – even if you are legally entitled to keep all of the tenant’s security deposit – you must still send the tenant a letter explaining to them why you can legally keep it and how it was applied.  There is no situation in which you should not be sending the 21-day letter to a vacating residential tenant in Wisconsin.  Even if common sense tells you it is not necessary (i.e. the tenant told me to use his/her security deposit to pay for the last month’s rent) you should still send out the letter.  If you are wrong the ramification may be expensive.  Be safe – send the letter each and every time. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Landlords Should Not Play Games With Tenants’ Security Deposits

Jan 7

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Caselaw, Security Deposit, Tenant Damage | 33 Comments

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’s security deposit.

2.   The key deductions that were made were: (1) $323.84 for the tenant’s water bill and (2) $85 to repair a clogged toilet.

3.   After withholding a portion of the tenant’s security deposit to pay her water bill, the landlord then failed to pay the bill timely.  As such, the tenant opted to pay the utility directly to avoid late fees. 

4.   The landlord then sent a refund check to the tenant — three weeks later — for the amount that he deducted from her security deposit to cover the water bill along with a Post-It note that said “Oh, too bad no double damages for you.” 

5.   The landlord then stopped payment on the check prior to the tenant cashing it.

The Court of Appeals held that the landlord violated ATCP 134 as a result of his “game-playing” with the tenant’s security deposit. 

First violation of ATCP 134:  The court held that it was unreasonable for the landlord to withhold money from his tenant’s security deposit in order to pay her water bill and then not use that money to pay the water bill timely.  The court specifically stated, “A landlord cannot indefinitely retain a deposit — merely as a deposit — after a tenant vacates.”  Read the rest of this entry »

Tags:

Article and Video Regarding Recent Seminar On Advising and Defending Property Owners in Nuisance Actions

Jul 1

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Nuisance Properties, Screening Tenants, Seminars | No Comments

 

On May 7, 2009 I spoke at the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual Convention.  I was asked to speak at the Government Lawyer Division’s seminar that focused on the topic of neighborhoods and nuisance properties.  Specifically I was asked to speak on advising and defending property owners that have nuisance properties.

The State Bar recently published a nice article summarizing my seminar presentation which was published through its online Inside Track newsletter.  A link to the article and a short video of my presentation on the topic of written screening criteria is below.

House rules: Landlords knowledgeable of tenancy laws improves condition of rental properties, neighborhoods (from wisbar.org)

Landlord accountability: Advising and defending the property owner
July 1, 2009 — In this video clip, Milwaukee attorney Tristan Pettit explains the importance of the property owner’s consistent use of written criteria when screening potential tenants. Pettit spoke at the Government Lawyers Division program at the State Bar Annual Convention in May. (from wisbar.org)

Tags: , ,

ATCP 134: THE 7 DEADLY SINS – 7 PROHIBITED RENTAL PROVISIONS

Jun 18

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Rental Agreements | 23 Comments

Did you know that if you have an illegal provision in your rental agreement that the entire agreement may be unenforceable? Unfortunately this is true. In the case of Baierl v. McTaggart the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that because the landlord’s lease contained an illegal provision, the entire lease could be thrown out. This result can occur even if you never tried to enforce the “illegal” provision as was the case with the landlord in the Baierl case.

In my representation of landlords over the past 14 years, the two most frequent situations in which I have found an illegal provision in a rental agreement were because: (1) the landlord decided to draft his/her own rental agreement and didn’t know that Wisconsin law prohibited him/her from including certain language, and (2) the landlord used a rental agreement that s/he found on the internet that was not drafted by a person knowledgeable about Wisconsin law.

The Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP 134, specifically ATCP 134.08 sets forth the 7 provisions that cannot be included in a Wisconsin residential rental agreement – often referred to as the 7 deadly sins.

You cannot include a provision in your rental agreement that:

1.  Authorizes the eviction of a tenant from the property other than by the judicial eviction process set forth in the Wisconsin Statutes.

Essentially this means that if the tenant refuses to vacate at the end of a lease or after committing a breach, the landlord is not able to engage in self-help eviction. You are not allowed to change the locks so that the tenant is locked out. You are not allowed to remove the door to the apartment. You are not allowed to turn off the heat or electricity to the unit. Nor can you remove the tenant’s belongings and put them on the curb or in a storage facility.

If a tenant refuses to leave your property, the only legal way to have them removed is to file an eviction action against them, obtain a judgment of eviction, and if necessary involve the Sheriff’s Department to physically remove the tenant. Because this is the only legal way to remove a tenant it is illegal to include some other procedure to evict a tenant in your rental agreement.

2.  Provides for the acceleration of rent payments if the tenant defaults or breaches the rental agreement.

Some commercial leases include an “acceleration of rents” clause but such clauses are prohibited in Wisconsin residential leases. So if a tenant breaches their rental agreement the landlord cannot require that the tenant immediately pay all future rent through the end of the term. According to sec. 704.29 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the landlord must attempt to mitigate the tenant’s damages by trying to re-rent the unit. If the landlord is able to re-rent the unit then the breaching tenant will no longer be responsible for the rent once the new tenant moves in and begins paying rent. If the landlord is unable to re-rent the unit then the breaching tenant may very well be responsible for all of the rent through the end of the term, however since the landlord is unable to determine if that will be the case at the time of the breach, the landlord cannot include language in the agreement that the tenant must pay all future rent immediately upon a breach.

3.  Waives the landlord’s duty to mitigate damages.

As I mentioned above, landlord’s have a duty to mitigate a tenant’s damages by trying to re-rent the unit. As such, it is illegal for the landlord to avoid that duty by putting such language in the rental agreement.

4.  Requires the tenant to pay the landlord’s attorney’s fees or costs that are incurred in any legal action or dispute arising under the rental agreement.

This is the illegal provision that I see the most often when reviewing rental agreements. The lease agreements that are sold at OfficeMax and Office Depot contain this prohibited language. This is also the illegal language that was included in the rental agreement at issue in the Baierl case that I reference above.

In a commercial lease it is acceptable to include language that requires a tenant to pay for the landlord’s attorney’s fees and costs however it is not allowed in the residential context. A landlord who prevails in court and has a tenant properly evicted will still be responsible for paying his/her own attorney’s fees. If you are interested in learning more about the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s reasoning you should read the Baierl case here.

5.  Relieves the landlord from liability for property damage or personal injuries caused by the landlord’s negligent acts or omissions.

To put it simply, if the landlord causes damage or injury to a tenant then the landlord will be responsible for it. A landlord cannot remove his/her liability by having a tenant sign a rental agreement waiving that responsibility. For example, if a landlord is aware that the railing on his rental property’s second floor porch is loose and the landlord has not gotten around to repairing it for several weeks, the landlord will be responsible for the tenant’s injuries should he fall off the porch, regardless of what the rental agreement says.

6.  Imposes liability on a tenant for injuries or damages which are clearly beyond the tenant’s control or any damage caused by natural disasters or by persons other then the tenant or the tenant’s guests.

This is very similar to the 5th deadly sin mentioned above but is even broader in scope. The landlord can’t hold a tenant responsible for someone else’s negligence (other than a guest) if the tenant has no control over that person, nor can the landlord hold the tenant responsible for injuries or damage resulting from an act of God.  So if the tenant or the tenant’s guest was negligent and that negligence caused damage or injury to the tenant or his property then the landlord will not be responsible – the tenant would. But if a massive snowstorm damages the rental property or an electrician hired by the landlord improperly wires the unit causing injuries and damage, the landlord cannot hold the tenant responsible regardless of what the rental agreement says.

7.  Waives any other statutory or legal obligation of the landlord to deliver the unit in a fit or habitable condition or maintain the unit during the tenancy.

A landlord has a responsibility to provide the tenant with an apartment that is liveable and safe. A landlord also has the responsibility to repair and maintain the property to insure that it remains safe and liveable. A landlord cannot avoid this responsibility even if the tenant agrees to allow him/her to do so in the rental agreement.

Wisconsin landlords need to make sure their rental agreements do not contain any of these 7 deadly sins. Failure to remove such illegal provisions may result in your rental agreement being declared unenforceable against the tenant and may even expose you to a lawsuit for double damages and attorney’s fees by the tenant.

Tags:

LATE FEES – PART 1: WHAT AMOUNT CAN YOU CHARGE?

Jun 6

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in ATCP 134, Caselaw, Late Fees | 31 Comments

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 fee is the case of Three & One Co. v. Geilfuss, 178 Wis.2d 400, 504 N.W. 2d 393 (Ct. App. 1993). This 1993 Court of Appeal decision is not even specifically about the issue of late fees but rather addresses the issue of “waste” (when a tenant intentionally damages the rental property) and what amount of damages a landlord may recover against a tenant that commits waste on the landlord’s property. Nonetheless the Court in Geilfuss does state in its opinion that the late fee of $50 per month charged by the landlord was properly assessed against the tenant. Thus, we as landlords know that at least the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld a late fee of $50 per month.

There is no other guidance in Wisconsin law as to the amount of late fee that is acceptable. No Wisconsin Statute addresses the issue nor does any administrative rule in Chapter ATCP 134 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

As such, a landlord should be able to charge a late fee of any amount as long as it is reasonable. Legally, a landlord should also be allowed to charge a daily late fee as well if they so choose. For those of you who choose to charge a daily late fee you should be aware the Model Lease for Subsidized Programs (which is drafted by HUD) specifically allow a landlord renting subsidized property to charge a late fee of $5 on the 6th day of the month and to charge $1 per day late fee each day thereafter for that month until the rent is paid.

On a practical level however – at least in Milwaukee County – there are some restrictions to the amount of the late fee that a landlord may charge. Milwaukee County has an unwritten rule that it does not allow daily late fees to be charged. I have had both court commissioners and judges in Milwaukee County eviction court toss out daily late fees that I have tried to obtain for my clients. The reason that I was provided is that daily late fees are “not fair.”

I have even had a past court commissioner in Milwaukee County (several years ago) tell me that he would not allow my client to collect a monthly late fee of $50 as he thought that was “unconscionable.” When I provided the commissioner with a copy of the Geilfuss case mentioned above where the Court of Appeals held that a $50 late fee was appropriate, the commissioner relented.

I have handled evictions and the associated damages claims in Dane County, Waukesha County, Kenosha County, Racine County, Aizoaceae County, Washington County, and a county or two county way up north that I can no longer recall – in all of these counties I have never had the court prevent me from obtaining a late fee for my client, regardless of the amount, as long as the late fee was clearly specified in the rental agreement as is required in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, ACP 134.09(8).

So as the law currently stands you should be able to charge any amount for a late fee that you wish, including daily late fees, if you are so inclined. However if you want to have actual legal support for the amount of the late fee you are charging then you may want to cap your late fees at $50 per month and carry a copy of the Geilfuss decision with you when you go to small claims court at least in Milwaukee County).

Please be aware however that individual municipalities can create ordinances regarding late fees that might be more restrictive than the state law.  For example the City of Madison’s local ordinances which you can review here prevent a landlord from charging a late fee that is more than 5% of the month rent.

A note of caution for Milwaukee County landlords – do not place the late fee amount in your 5 day notice or you might have your eviction case dismissed. See my prior post on this topic here.

Please share with me your experience with what amount of late fees you charge your tenants and if you have had any problems with the courts doing so.

Tags: ,