Posts Tagged Landlord

EXECUTION OF WRIT: Part 2 – The Details

Aug 17

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

Last week I provided some basic information about what is involved in the execution of a writ of restitution (eviction) and how the process works.  With this week’s post I wanted to provide everyone with some additional — more detailed — information about the execution process.  I attempted to group these tidbits of info by category.  Much of the information below is specific to Milwaukee County and the Milwaukee County eviction squad.

General

-  The applicable Wisconsin Statute regarding executing a writ is 799.45, Wis. Stats.

-   Milwaukee County Eviction Squad’s phone number is (414) 278-5030. 

-   A typical eviction move-out takes 1 hour.

-   Approximately 15-20 evictions are performed per day.

-   There is both a 1st and a 2nd shift that performs evictions.  The 1st shift arrives at the office around 7 am.  The 2nd shift works until 8 pm.

-   The landlord should alert the Sheriff if any of the following apply: (1) the tenant has mental health issues, (2) there are dangerous dogs residing in the unit, (3) the tenants are believed to be involved with drug dealing, (4) there are guns on the property, (5) the tenant is elderly and/or disabled and has no place to move to or family to assist him/her.

The reason that the Sheriff wants to be notified of (1) – (4) is for the Sheriff’s own safety.  If there is a mentally unstable tenant, dogs, drugs, guns, or some other factor that might result in the increased risk of injury, the Sheriff wants to be notified of this in advance so that they can have back-up near by.  The execution of a writ can be very dangerous.  Tenants who are being displaced from their homes are often emotional (understandably so).  I have heard of Sheriff’s deputies being injured and even killed while performing an eviction.  If a landlord has any inkling that there could be issues during the eviction this should be communicated to the Sheriff’s Department.

The reason that the Sheriff wants to be notified of (5) (if the tenant is elderly and/or disabled and has no family to assist or place to move to) is because the Sheriff will then contact the Department of Aging or a social service agency prior to the eviction so that someone can be on hand to assist the elderly and/or disabled person in locating a safe place.

The best way to notify the Sheriff of any of the above conditions is to attach a note to the paperwork that you are filing with the Sheriff.  This way the clerk can pass that note along to the eviction squad along with the Writ.

-   After the tenant’s property has been removed, the tenant and any other individuals living in the unit will be escorted out of the unit.  The Sheriff will put a placard on the door.  If the tenant returns and enters the unit after the eviction has occurred the police should be called.  The Sheriff cannot make a tenant leave the apartment complex or neighborhood as the Sheriff only has the authority to remove the tenant from the unit.  

Eviction Route

-   The eviction squad performs all evictions on the south side of Milwaukee first and then they move to the north side.

Notification To Landlord

-   The Sheriff will do its best to notify the landlord of the date and time for the eviction on three different occassions: (1) the night before the eviction is scheduled, (2) at 7:30 a.m. the morning of the scheduled eviction, and (3) as they are driving to the property to perform the eviction.

Moving Companies

-   Certain moving companies are used only on certain days of the week in Milwaukee County.  So a landlord does have some control over what day of the week his/her eviction will occur by choosing who to hire as the moving company.  If Eagle Movers has been retained then the Sheriff will schedule the eviction for Monday, Wednesday, or Friday.  If Aetna Movers are hired then the eviction will occur on a Tuesday.  If Dweyer Movers (owned by Eagle Movers) are used then the eviction will be on a Thursday.  Wednesdays are reserved for JC Triplett.

Appliances

-   If the landlord provides appliances with his/her rental unit then the landlord should notify the Sheriff of this.  The landlord should also provide the Sheriff with information about the type of appliances, manufacturer, color etc.  If the Sheriff is not advised of this information and the tenant tells the moving company that the appliances are his/hers, there is little the Sheriff can do to prevent this type of theft.

Storage Lockers

-   If the tenant has property stored in a storage locker which needs to be removed, the Sheriff needs to be told of this.  If the landlord does not know which storage locker is the tenant’s, the Sheriff will not remove any items from any of the lockers as they could be held responsible if they remove items from the wrong storage locker.

Tenant’s Personal Property

-   The Sheriff has the authority to decide what of the tenant’s belongings are of no value (junk) and what is valuable and should be packed and moved to storage.

-   Neither the Sheriff nor the moving company will remove a tenant’s clothing.  This rule is in place for safety reasons because in the past the Sheriff/movers were stuck by needles that were left in clothing.

-   Only large items will be removed.  Smaller items will be left in the unit for the landlord to remove. 

-   If the tenant’s property is infested with roaches, bed bugs, or some other critter, the items will NOT be moved.  Moldy items will also not be placed into the moving truck.  The moving companies do not want to help spread these infestations throughout the city so the removal of such property will be left to the landlord.

-   Once the Sheriff determines what is junk/garbage, the landlord then has a choice to either leave the junk in the property (which the landlord can then remove later) or have the moving company haul everything to the curve (which the moving company will charge the landlord for doing).

-   If a tenant is present, and his/her property is determiend to be of value, the tenant is given a choice as to what should be done with his/her belongings.  The property can be moved and placed into storage (which the tenant will then be required to pay for if s/he wants the possessions back) or the tenant can opt to have his/her property placed at the curb (for the tenant to remove).

-   If a tenant’s personal property is going to be placed into storage, the moving company must put the property into boxes, which the landlord will pay for.  While it is frustrating for the landlord to have to pay for boxes to house the tenant’s property, the moving company cannot just throw the tenant’s belongings haphazardly into the back of the truck for many reasons (safety and liability are two that come to mind).  The property will also be inventoried.

Liability for Execution of Void Writ

-   The Sheriff will be liable to the tenant for any damages resulting from the execution of a writ that was given to the Sheriff  beyond the 30 day period.  The Sheriff will also be liable for any resulting damages if the Sheriff executes a writ beyond the 10 day period.  Wolfe-Lille v. Kenosha County Sheriff, 699 F. 2d 864 (7th Cir. 1983).

Cancellation of Writ

-   Landlord must have the docket number that was giving at the time that the paperwork was filed with the Sheriff, in order to cancel an eviction.  Only the Sheriff and the landlord are given the docket number.  The tenant should NEVER be given the docket number or else s/he could cancel their own eviction.

-   If a landlord cancels an eviction, the Sheriff discards the paperwork.  As a result, a landlord cannot “un-cancel” an execution of the writ.  A landlord should never cancel the eviction with the Sheriff unless they are certain that the tenant has vacated.

Costs of Execution

-   The Sheriff charges $112.50 per hour for their time in executing a writ.

-   The total cost to execute the writ will be based on the actual hours expended by the Sheriff.  The costs will be taken out of the $130 deposit that was previously posted.  Any remaining monies will be returned to the landlord within 4-8 weeks.  If the total cost exceeds the $130 deposit, the Sheriff will send a bill for the overage.

-   The cost of the Sheriff and the moving company are all chargeable to the landlord.  However these costs will be taxed and added to any money judgment that the landlord pursues against the tenant  – whether or not the judgment is collectible, is a whole different issue.

-   The only costs that are the truly the responsibility of the tenant (aside from if the landlord obtains a judgment against the tenant and actually collects on it) are the costs incurred for the storage of the tenant’s belongings after the delivery of the property to the storage facility.

Tags: , , , ,

What Is This Mitigation of Damages Requirement That I Keep Hearing About?

Jul 22

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Mitigation of Damages / Re-Renting | 2 Comments

Whether a tenant breaches his or her lease and is evicted, leaves after receiving the 5 day or 14 day notice, or skips out in the middle of the night with months remaining on the lease, a landlord has the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to mitigate the tenant’s damage under Wisconsin law.

Put quite simply – a landlord cannot just sit back and do nothing and expect to collect rent from the departed tenant until the lease term ends.  Per Sec. 704.29 of the Wisconsin Statutes, a landlord must make reasonable efforts to attempt to mitigate the tenant’s damages by trying to re-rent the unit for the tenant.

“Reasonable efforts” are defined as “those steps that the landlord would have taken to rent the premises if they had been vacated in due course . . .”  So if you typically advertise your vacancies in the Journal Sentinel then you should advertise the tenant’s vacant unit in the Journal-Sentinel also.  If you typically advertise vacancies on Craig’s List, then you should do the same for the tenant’s vacant’s unit.  If you always post a “For Rent” sign in the front of the apartment building, then you should do the same here as well.

The tenant is legally responsible for any costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent their now vacant unit.  Whether the old tenant is collectible and you will ever be reimbursed for those out of pocket costs is a practical matter that the statutes do not address.

If you have other vacant units at the same property, you do not need to re-rent the tenant’s old unit before you rent out the other vacant units.  But you should add your ex-tenant’s vacant unit into the mix and show it along with your other vacancies to any prospective renters.

The  Wisconsin Statutes do not provide us with a definition of ”reasonable efforts.”  What is reasonable is determined on a case by case basis and varies depending on the specific facts and the judge or court commisioner that is hearing the case.  A landlord should use common sense.  If you follow the same procedures as you always do when you have vacancies, you should be OK.

I hope it goes without saying that the following would NOT be considered to be reasonable efforts to mitigate a tenant’s damages:

1.   The arbitrary refusal to re-rent the unit to a prospective tenant.

2.   An attempt to rent the unit at a higher rental amount then other similar units in an attempt to dissuade a prospective renter from choosing the tenant’s vacant unit.

An issue that often arises in these mitigation cases is what if the landlord cannot not begin re-renting the unit because the tenant caused extensive damage and the landlord needs time to return the unit to a rentable condition.  In my experience, I have found the courts to be understanding if a landlord is placed into a catch-22 situation like this.  I have argued successfully in court on many occasions that if the tenant caused damage to the unit which requires the landlord to need more time to repair the unit — thus delaying his/her ability to attempt to re-rent the unit — that this should not be held against the landlord as long as the landlord moves forward with the repairs in a reasonable amount of time.

The argument is a simple one . . .  “your Honor, but for the tenant having caused damage to the unit, my client would have been able to begin the re-rental process immediately.  It was the fact that the tenant decided to paint the master bedroom a beautiful shade of purple, allowed their cat to use the hallway carpet as a personal litter box, and encouraged their 2 year old child to express her artistic abilities with a permanant marker on the newly refinished hardwood floors, that delayed my client’s ability to re-rent the unit the following month.”

According to sec. 704.29(3), Wis. Stats., a landlord must allege and prove that s/he made efforts to re-rent the unit for the tenant.  The tenant then has the burden of proving that the efforts that the landlord took were not reasonable.  The burden then shifts to the tenant to prove that the efforts taken by the landlord were not reasonable.  The tenant also has the burden to demonstrate the amount of money that could have been obtained as rent had the landlord made reasonable efforts to mitigate by re-renting.

The issue as to whether or not the landlord used “reasonable efforts” to re-rent the unit is frequently raised by residential tenants that appear in court to fight any money damages claims sought by the landlord.  The mitigation issue is ALWAYS raised by commercial tenants because commercial lease terms are typically for many years which could result in the tenant being “on the hook” for tens of thousands of dollars.

So if you are ever in the unfortunate situation where a tenant has vacated your rental unit with months remaining on the lease, you will want to make sure and save any documents that will demonstrate that you made reasonable efforts to re-rent the tenant’s unit.  This often includes, photos of the “For Rent” sign indicating the date it was put up, copies of advertisements placed on Craig’s List or in the Journal Sentinel, invoices for the cost of the ads, a list of the potential renters who called interested in renting the unit, the reasons why any potential tenant was rejected (this is another time when having written screening criteria is a must), and any other evidence that shows that your efforts to mitigate your ex-tenant’s damages were reasonable.

Once the unit is re-rented, the tenant’s responsibility for rent is over.  So typically the tenant will remain responsible for rent until either the end of the lease term or until you are able to re-rent the unit, whichever comes first.

While it may seem unfair that you have to expend extra time and energy to help reduce a tenant’s damages when s/he was the one in the worng — it is the law.

Tags: , ,

CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS LANDLORDS’ LAWSUIT DENIED BY THE COURT – LAWSUIT CONTINUES

Jun 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 4 Comments

On May 21, 2010, Judge Timothy Wotkowiak, denied the City of Milwaukee’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by three Milwaukee landlords who sued the city as a result of its newly enacted ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections of rental housing in two areas of the city.

For background information on the ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010, please read my November 24, 2009 post.  For background information on the lawsuit that was filed against the city you can refer to my December 31, 2009 post.  And for information about the city’s motion to dismiss and arguments both for and against the motion I would direct you to my May 4, 2010 post.

As stated in my earlier post, the plaintiff landlords made three key arguments as to why it was not necessary for them to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim prior to initiating the lawsuit.  Judge Witkowiak agreed with the arguments offerred by the landlords on all three issues.

Issue #1: 

The court indicated that it was not practical to require the landlords to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim — which would have allowed the city 120 to respond — in part because of the basis of the lawsuit.  The landlords’ lawsuit included the filing of a temporary restraining order to stop an immediate harm (the carrying out of the ordinance) and to make the plaintiffs wait for 120 days before they could even file suit would not be practical or just as the city would have been able to implement what is argued to be an unconstitutional program for at least 120 days before a court could review the issues and concerns with the ordinance.

Issue #2:

The court found that the city did have actual notice of the claim even though a formal notice was not served upon it.  Judge Witkowiak spent considerable time pointing out all of various contacts made by landlords, the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin (AASEW) , and others which provided the city with actual notice of the concerns with the ordinance.  The court made reference to the letter that the AASEW’s lawyers (who also happen to represent the three plaintiff landlords)sent to City Attorney Grant Langley outlining the many problems with the proposed ordinance.  The court also referred to the letter that I wrote as President of the AASEW to Common Council President Willie Hines and the city’s other alderman, expressing the association’s many concerns with the ordinance.  The aformentioned letters, along with a DVD of the public hearing held before the ZND committee of the Commom Council, were all attached to the plaintiff landlords’ brief in opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss, and appeared to carry great weight with the Court.

Issue #3:

Judge Witkowiak also stated that the city sufferred no prejudice by not having been served with a formal Notice of Claim by the plaintiffs.  The city appeared to argue that it was prejudiced because it had to prepare its legal defense to the lawsuit and that somehow that was to be considered sufficient prejudice to grant the city’s motion.  I have heard a lot of “out there” arguments during my 15 years of law practice, but that was a new one, for me.  The court properly determined that that was not the type of “prejudice” that the city needed to demonstrate in order to prevail on its motion.

As such a result of this decision, the plaintiff landlords’ lawsuit will now move forward and address the actual problems with the ordinance.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for June 15, 2010.  On this date, the court will provide deadlines for the parties to complete various matters that will assist in moving the case forward, such as deadlines to complete discovery (the fact gathering process), deadlines to file dispositive motions (motions that could end the case without the need for a fact-finding trial), and other matters.

Based on the comments of the attorney’s for both the city and the plaintiff landlords it appears that both sides may very well be contemplating the filing of a dispositive motion — such as a summary judgment motion — which would allow the court to decide the lawsuit as a matter of law, without the need for a fact finding trial, because there are no material facts that are in dispute.

I will keep you up to date on the status of the lawsuit as I learn more.

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 | 4 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: , , , , ,

LANDLORD BOOT CAMP: Only 4 Open Seats Remain

Feb 16

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

UPDATE 2/17/10 – WE ARE AT FULL CAPACITY FOR LANDLORD BOOT CAMP ON 2/27/10.  If you are interested in attending please contact Paulette at (414) 276-7378 or paulette@apartmentassoc.org and she will put your name on a “waiting list” and contact you should a seat become available.
 
Thank You
 
T
 
________________________________________________________
 
We had a great AASEW monthly membership meeting last night — close to 90 people.  That was the largest crowd that I have seen at a meeting in my many years as a member.  Many of the attendees at the meeting also signed up for the AASEW’s Landlord Bootcamp that I will be teaching in about 10 days.  If you are interested in attending I would encourage you to do so immediately as I am told that there are only 4 seats left.  Looks like we will have a full house!
 
Below is my earlier blog post about the Boot Camp and the topics that I will address on Feb. 27th:
 
 
I will be presenting an all-day seminar on residential landlord tenant law in Wisconsin for the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW).  The seminar is entitled “Landlord Boot Camp” and will take place on Saturday, February 27, 2010 from approx. 8:30 am – 5 pm at the Clarion Hotel located at 5311 S. Howell Avenue in Milwaukee.
 
The cost will be $159 for AASEW members and $259 for non-members.  You will receive a 100 page plus manual.  I have given a similar seminar to lawyers, landlords, and property managers over 25 times during the past few years and the organizations that have sponsored these seminars typically charge between $300-$400.  This is your opportunity to learn all of the same information at a much discounted price.
 
I will cover pretty much anything and everything that you need to know about residential Landlord Tenant law in Wisconsin, including:
 
1.   How to properly screen prospective tenants
 
2.   How to draft written screening criteria to assist you in the selection process
 
3.   How to comply with both federal and state Fair Housing laws including how to comply with “reasonable modifications”  and “reasonable accomodations” requests
 
4.   How to legally reject an applicant
 
5.   What rental documents you should be using and why
 
6.   When you should be using a 5-day notice versus a 14-day notice, 28-day notice, or 30-day notice and how to properly serve the notice on your tenant
 
7.   Everything you wanted to know (and probably even more than you wanted to know) about the Residential Rental Practices (ATCP 134) and how to avoid having to pay double damages to your tenant for breaching ATCP 134
 
8.   When you are legally allowed to enter your tenant’s apartment
 
9.   How to properly draft an eviction summons and complaint
 
10.   What to do to keep the commissioner from dismissing your eviction suit
 
11.   What you can legally deduct from a security deposit
 
12.   How to properly draft a security deposit transmittal / 21 day letter
 
13.   How to handle pet damage
 
14.   What to do with a tenant’s abandoned property and how this may affect whether or not you file an eviction suit
 
15.   How to pursue your ex-tenant for damages to your rental property and past due rent (and whether it is even worth it to do so)
 
. . .  and much more.
 
Hope to see you there. 
 
Call Paulette at (414) 276-7378 or email her at paulette@apartmentassoc.org to reserve your seat.

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: