Posts Tagged Landlords

Landlords Will Be Required To Install Carbon Monoxide Detectors In Single Family and Duplex Rentals

Feb 23

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

A new bill was recently passed by the Wisconsin Senate that will require landlords that rent out single-family homes and duplexes to install carbon monoxide detectors on all floors of these dwellings by Febraury 1, 2011.

Senate Bill 415 was passed 69-27 via voice vote after the Assembly previously passed the bill by a 2/3’s margin.  You can read the entire history of the bill here.  It is anticipated that the Governor will sign the bill.

SB 415 requires the owner of most buildings that contain one or two dwelling units to install a carbon monoxide detector in the basement and on each floor of the dwelling unit except for the attic.

Additionally, the bill requires that if the tenant notifies the owner in writing that a detector is not working properly, that the owner must perform the necessary maintenance to repair the detector or replace it within 5 days after receipt of the notice by the tenant.

The bill also exempts an owner for any liability for any false alarms or from the failure of the detector to work properly if its failure was due to tampering, as long as the owner reasonably maintained the detector.

Existing 1 and 2 unit dwellings will be allowed to use battery operated carbon monoxide detectors.

A carbon monoxide detector is not required to be installed if the unit does not have an attached garage, has no fireplace, and has no fuel-burning appliances.

Finally, the bill authorizes a building inspector to inspect new dwellings, and if requested to do so by the owner or tenant, to inspect the interior of an existing rental unit to ensure that the owner has complied with the requirements set forth in this bill.

This new law will become effective as of February 1, 2011 and will be contained in Section 101.647 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

Please remember that the carbon monoxide law that affects rentals that include 3 units or greater goes into effect April 1, 2010.  This law can be found in Sec. 101.149, of the Wisconsin Statutes.  ADDED 3/1/10:  These regulations were issued as emergency rules by the Department of Commerce, Safety and Building Division, as required 2007 Wisconsin Act 205 (in April 2008).  The Wisconsin Department of Commerce’s brochure on this law is very informative.

———————————–

Thanks to Atty. Heiner Giese for forwarding this information to me.

Tags: , ,

CCAP Bill Amended to Allow Landlords Full Access; Possibly Going to Assembly for Vote

Feb 5

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Legislation, Rep. Marlin Schneider | 3 Comments

As many of you know who have been following my updates on the ever evolving attempts by Marlin Schneider to restrict access to CCAP – Mr. Schneider has again amended his proposed bill.  The bill is now called Assembly Bill 663 but it is practically the same as the amended AB 340.  Why the change in the bill number I have not a clue.

AB 663 was voted on by the State Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

Prior to voting on the bill, several amendments were made.  The major amendment was to was to include real estate brokers and salespeople, bankers and other financial agents, landlords, and those working in the title industry, to the list of the ”select few” who would be able to access CCAP in its entirety.  Everyone else would still be limited to the restricted version of CCAP which would exclude information on pending cases and cases in which the defendant was acquitted or the lawsuit was dismissed.

Even with this major changes, AB 663 barely made it out of committee.  The committee was deadlocked at 3 to 3.  Voting for the bill was Rep Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Leon Black (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison).  Voting against the proposed bill was Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison), Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomnowac) and Rep. Danield Knodl (R-Germantown).  Two members of the committee were on vacation and therefore did not participate in the vote.  The Chairperson of the committe, and bill c0-sponsor, Fred Kessler advanced the bill, without reccomendation, to the Assembly leaders who will now determine whether or not the Assembly as a whole will vote on it.

While it is great that landlords have now been added to the”chosen few” who are deemed worthy to have access to all open records in Wisconsin – this bill should still fail.  Current President of the Wisconsin Apartment Association, John H. Fischer (also known as Dr. Rent, gave his personal opinion on the AASEWAdvisors list serv, earlier.

He stated, in part:

It is nice that the bill on CCAP was amended to include people like landlords and employers… but to be completely honest, now it has just gotten silly.  He [Rep. MArlin Schneider] wanted this bill so landlords and employers didn’t use the CCAP records in a method that was illegal, but then he modifies the bill to include us…. So what exactly will it accomplish now?  It has been watered down so far to have no real impact, so why even have it at all.  In addition, how are they going to determine who is a landlord, who is an employer?  Are we going to have to register?  (Gee a statewide registration system for landlords, won’t that make licensing something easy to do in the future).
 
In my personal opinion, the stance of the WAA should be similar to that of the Newspapers.  Even though they were allowed full access under the original proposal, they still objected to it because there is something inherently wrong with making public records difficult for the public to have access to.
 
. . .
 
I think we still need to be opposed because once limitations are put in place, what is stopping from them from expanding those limitations in a future session.  They can take away all of our rights at one time, or they can chip away piece by piece until they are all gone.  Either way, the end game is the same.
 
My two cents….
 

I agree with John 100%.

This bill is barely holding on.  It is on life support — we need to put it out of its misery.  Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel in his recent article on the topic indicates that Kessler himself, one of the bill’s sponsors, said that it has a “slim” chance of passing.  I would like to change that to NO chance of passing.

This is a very critical time.  We must all contact our representatives in the state legislature and let them know that this bill should be defeated.

If you do not know the contact information for your representatives you can find that information here.

Oh yeah, and here is an article stating that Rep. Schneider is lying in an attempt to push his legislation limiting CCAP through the system.  Good thing the AP caught him.

Tags: , ,

City of Milwaukee Releases Its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program

Jan 10

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Evictions, Fair Housing / Discrimination, Landlording, Lead-Based Paint, Notices of Breach, Protected Classes, Screening Tenants, Seminars | 1 Comment

The City of Milwaukee has just released its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program.  The focus of these 5 special seminars will be on learning how to effectively and professionally manage your rental properties.  All of the sessions will take place on Saturday mornings to allow those of you who work an additional job (aside from being a landlord) to attend.

I am very honored to have been asked, as president of the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin, to present one of these special sessions on Saturday, August 14, 2010.  The topic that I will be addressing is the Judicial Eviction Process.  The seminar will run from 9 am – 12 pm at Alverno College’s Wehr Theater which is located at 3441 S. 39th Street.

Other special sessions in the 2010 program include:

February 6, 2010:     (1) The District Attorney’s new diversion program for tenant’s who “bounce” their rent checks  - presented by A.D.A. Ron Dague, and  (2) The EPA’s new renovation rules regarding lead-based paint which will become effective later this year – taught by Ada Duffey of Milwaukee Lead/Asbestos Information Center, Inc.

April 24, 2010:     Screening Tenants and how using a good tenant screening company can assist you during the very important screening process - presented by Kathy Huens of Landlord Services, LLC

June 12, 2010:     Fair Housing Practices – Know Your Local, State and Federal Laws – presented by Margaret Bowitz of the Milwaukee Metro Fair Housing Council

October 2, 2010:    Fire and Building Codes – presented by Deputy Fire Chief Michael Payne and Department of Neighborhood Services Commissioner Art Dahlberg

All sessions are free of charge but ADVANCED REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.  To register call (414) 286-2934 or email jhagne@milwaukee.gov

Tags: , , , ,

Landlords Sue City of Milwaukee To Stop Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance

Dec 31

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Landlord Licensing / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Residential Rental Certificate Program, Legislation | No Comments

On December 29, 2009, three landlords filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee in an attempt to stop the new Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance that was recently passed. 

The lawsuit includes a complaint, motion for temporary injunction, ex parte motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and supporting affidavits.  Essentially, the plaintiffs are arguing that the ordinance as written is (1) unconstitutionally vague, (2) contains fatal defects, (3) fails to provide for an impartial review and (4)interferes with their constitutional right to contract with their tenants.

I would suggest that you read the entire lawsuit but I will attempt to summarize the plaintiffs’ main arguments.

1.    1st claim: The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague

The plaintiffs’ argue that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords owning rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate.  The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate.  This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cite 7 examples within the ordinance where the landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

2.     2nd claim:  The ordinance contains fatal defects

Basically this argument states that the ordinance as written contains terms which are unclear, have no definition, and fail to set forth clear standards for which a rental certificate will be granted.  Additionally it is argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provide 9 examples within the ordinance where significant terms are not defined or are unclear.  Essentially their argument is that the standard as to what will casue the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors (and essentailly that the subjective standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next).  This argument also focuses on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioenr to draft rules or regulations  which have not been made a part of the ordinance.  This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes.  The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

3.     3rd claim:  Failure to provide impartial review

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS — the employer of the inspector that made the intial decision.  The plaintiffs argue that as written the ordinance allows the individual and agency that made the unwritten rules for inspection and then subjectively applied those rules, to also act as the decision-maker for the review of any contested determination.  Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) require that all municipalities provide an “imparital decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination” to preside over any review.

4.     4th claim: Interference with the constitutional right to contract

According to the ordinance, all rental units within the two designated areas will be required to have a rental certificate in place (if there is a tenant residing in the unit) as of January 1st, 2010 — Friday.  If no certificate is in place by 1/1/10 then the owner of the rental will be in violation of the ordinance as written.  The argument made by the plaintiffs is that since the ordinance does not provide for the rental certificates to be issued until after an inspection takes place (which will be at least 30 days after 1/1/10) that landlords will be forced to terminate the tenancies of their tenants or else be in violation of the ordinance.  By being forced to issue a termination notice to their tenants, the plaintiffs argue that the city isinterfering with the landlords and tenants rental agreement – and by doing so they are interfering with a landlords right to enter into a contract with his/her tenant.

The plaintiffs are asking that the court to temporarily enjoin the city from enforcing the residentail rental certificate ordinance.  They are also asking the court to issue an order declaring that the ordinance is invalid.  Finally the plaintiffs are asking the court to permanatly enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinance.

This lawsuit has been tabbed to Judge Timothy Witkowiak.

A hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order was held earlier today before Judge Timothy Dugan.  Judge Dugan denied the landlords’ motion for a TRO without reaching the underlying problems with the ordinance.  One of the requirements in order to be granted a TRO is that some “irreperable harm” must be demonstrated.  Judge Dugan felt that becasue no landlord has been issued a citation by the city and because the city has not tried to remove any tenant from the plaintiff’s’ rental units, as of yet, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any irreperable harm.”

Tags: , , , ,

Mayor Signs Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Certificate Program Ordinance

Dec 11

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Landlord Licensing / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Residential Rental Certificate Program, Legislation | No Comments

About 1 hour before the close of business yesterday, December 10, 2009, Mayor Tom Barrett signed the city of Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Certificate Program ordinance into law.  Mayor Barrett left everyone waiting and wondering if he would sign it as the deadline to do so was the close of business yesterday.

The ordinance can be read in its entirety here.

The Preinspection Checklist can be found here.  The checklist gives a detailed overview of all items that DNS will be inspecting when they come knocking in 2010.  The landlords in the two designated areas will probably get pretty familiar with that checklist during the next 5 years of the “pilot program.”

The ordinance will go into effect as of January 1, 2010.

Tags: , ,

AASEW Continues To Fight Against The City of Milwaukee’s Residential Rental Certificate Program

Dec 7

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, Landlord Licensing / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Residential Rental Certificate Program, Legislation | 1 Comment

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW) continues its attempt to defeat the recently passed ordinance creating a Residential Rental Certificate Program in two areas of the city.  On December 7, 2009, the AASEW issued a Press Release urging the mayor to veto the legislation in order to avoid expensive litigation. 

Additonally, President of the AASEW Tristan Pettit wrote a letter to Mayor Tom Barrett pointing out many of the legal problems with the ordinance.  A similar letter was sent to the members of the Common Council  prior to their vote last week – which went ignored.  The letter specifically delineates 6 of the many structural and legal problems with the ordinance and encourages the mayor to veto the legislation in order to spare the city the time and expense of defending the poorly drafted legislation in court.

The Mayor has until the close of business on Thursday, December 10, 2009 to sign the legislation or else it would go back to the Common Council for reconsideration.  If the Mayor vetoes the ordinance then the Common Council would have to garner 10 votes (from the 15 members) in order to override the veto.

Tags: , , ,

TENANT MOVED OUT AND LEFT YOU HOLDING THE BAG!

Nov 24

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Collections, Landlording | 1 Comment

With a short week ahead of us due to the Thanksgiving  holiday, and the fact that I will be traveling to the wonderful land of flat terrain and tons of wind (a.k.a Kansas), I thought I would take this opportunity to re-post some very good advice from a friend of mine and fellow blogger, Bill Gray of Rent Recovery Services, who is also known as The Landlord Doctor.  http://www.TheLanlordDoctor.com

Bill writes a blog that focuses on collection issues, and specifically collection issues related to past tenants.  He also serves as the regional manager for a great collection service called Rent Recovery Service which I wrote about in a prior blog.  Bill has some very good advice to share and I especially enjoyed his blog post entitled:

TENANT MOVED OUT – LEFT YOU HOLDING THE BAG. 

Perhaps your tenant lied and took advantage of you.  He may have skipped out on the lease or you may have evicted him.  In either case, he damaged your rental and cost you money!  What do you do now?

1.  First, set your emotions aside and spend some time organizing your ex-tenant’s file.  Whether you own one unit or one thousand, or whether you manage your rentals full-time or part-time, you are running a business.  Any successful business keeps well organized, complete records. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,