Posts Tagged Legislation

New Law Limits Landlords From Pursuing A Deceased Tenant’s Estate

Jun 25

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

Governor Doyle recently signed into law 2009 WI Act 323 which creates a new section to Chapter 704 of the Wisconsin Statutes regarding Landlord-Tenant Law.

The new section 704.165, Wis. Stats., is entitled “Termination of Tenancy at Death of Tenant”

Below is a summary of the new law:

1.     If a residential tenant dies and had a term lease, his/her tenancy will be terminated  60 days after the landlord learns of the death or the expiration of the rental term, whichever occurs first.

2.     If a residential tenant dies and was under a periodic tenancy (i.e. month to month) then the tenancy will terminate 60 days after the landlord  becomes aware of the death.  If the deceased tenant’s estate provides proper notice to terminate the tenancy under sec. 704.19, Wis. Stats. then the tenancy may be terminated even earlier as outlined in 704.19, Wis. Stats.

3.     Neither the deceased residential tenant nor his/her estate will be liable for any rent after the tenancy is terminated.

4.     The landlord must still attempt to mitigate the deceased tenant’s damages by making attempts to re-rent the unit before the tenancy terminates.

5.     Nothing in this new section relieves another adult tenant who resides at the rental property (and who did not die) from their obligations under the rental agreement or otherwise.

6.     A landlord may not contact or otherwise communicate with a member of the deceased tenant’s family in an attempt to obtain rent for which the family member has no liability.

7.     This new law first applies to tenancies and rental agreements that are entered into on or after May 12, 2010.

Tags: , ,

Proposed Bill To Require Landlords To Disclose If Their Rental Property Was A “Meth Lab”

Apr 19

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Investing In Rental Property, Legislation | 7 Comments

On March 26, 2010, Senators Lena Taylor and Spencer Coggs along with Senator Lehman sponsored 2009 Senate Bill 650.  SB 650 will affect both landlords and sellers of real estate in which the drug methamphetamine has been manufactured.

The bill requires both owners wishing to sell and landlords wishing to rent property that was used as a “meth lab” in the past to disclose in writing this fact to potential renters and purchasors.

If methamphetamine was manufactured on the property the seller of the property must disclose this in the real estate condition report.  If a landlord is renting a property that was previously used as a “meth lab” then the landlord must disclose this in writing to any potential renters.

The production of “crystal meth” has become an increasing problem, one that does not just affect city properties.  In fact more and more meth labs are being discovered in rural areas where the illegal activity is far less likely to be noticed.

Studies have shown that the hazardous chemicals that are used to make meth and the chemicals which are a produced during the manufacture of  the drug can seep into floors, ceilings, walls, duct work etc. and can remain for years.  I believe that this discovery is the prime impetus for the creation of this bill.

While I think this is a good bill, it goes without saying that any landlord or seller of real estate in which meth has been manufactured will have a very difficult time renting or selling this property if the bill is passed.  As a result it is more important than ever for landlords to visit and inspect their rental properties.  To be a good landlord you need to know what is going on in your units.  Wisconsin law allows landlords to make periodic inspections of their rental property with at least 12 hours notice (ATCP 134.09 (2).  Landlords should take advantage of this opportunity to inspect their rental units —- especially if they suspect illegal activity.

Tags: ,

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

Feb 23

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in Carbon Monoxide Detectors, Legislation | 5 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: ,

Milwaukee’s New Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Is Here

Jan 28

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, DNS, Legislation | 5 Comments

I need to apologize.  I have spent much of my time these last several months following and providing information about the city of Milwaukee’s new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance and as such I have inadvertantly failed to let everyone know about another of Milwaukee’s new ordinances that will affect rental property owners. 

I was talking with a client of mine last week prior to the 1:30 pm eviction return calandar in small claims court and he mentioned that the city recently served him with notice that he is in violation of the city’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance.  He was told that his rental property was vacant and that he didn’t register the property with the city as required and that he must now open his property up for an interior inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS).  Interesting twist is that my client’s rental property is not vacant nor has it ever been vacant.  The unit is occupied by a tenant under a valid written rental agreement.

On January 1, 2010, Milwaukee’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance went into effect.  Essentially the ordinance states that the owner of any building that is vacant for more than 30 days must register the property with DNS and submit to a mandatory – warrantless – interior inspection of the rental property.  The ordinance also requires the owner to secure the building, maintanin the lot, exterior of the property, and interior of the property during the time that it is vacant.

Upon first glance this seems like a reasonable ordinance.  A valiant attempt by the city to insure that vacant buildings do not become dilapidated and attract criminal activity, injure individuals, or further depress Milwaukee’s neighborhoods.  I have no problem with that.  Upon closer review of the ordinance however you will note the many requirements – similar to the city’s Residential Rental Certificate ordinance — that are open to multiple interpretations and therfore open to abuse, which in the end, can and most likely will, be used to the detriment of rental property owners.

I will not attempt to explain or detail the entire Vacant Building Registration ordinance as it is over 6 pages long.  I would like to touch on some key parts of the ordinance and note some concerns. 

This new ordinance applies to all residential and commercial properties that have been vacant for more than 30 days.  There are some exceptions.  It does not apply to single family homes or owner-occupied duplexes (as long as the owner has resided in the duplex at least 3 of the last 9 months and the owner intends to continue living in the duplex).  Also excluded from the ordinance are condominiums and  rental units as long as their vacancy rate does not exceed 95%.  Also excluded is property that is currently in the foreclosure process and property that is actively being renovated.

This ordinance will apply to your rental whether or not you are actively showing the property to prospective renters and regardless of the condition of the property.  So within 30 days of the property becoming vacant you must fill out a city application and file it with DNS.  Additionally you must allow DNS to conduct an interior inspection.  If the city finds any violations you will be cited.

Your intial application will be good for a period of 6 months and will cost you nothing (assuming the city does not cite you for any violations).  If your property remains vacant for more than 6 months then you must reapply and pay a $250 fee.  If DNS determines, at the time of renewal, that your property is not compliant then the fee will increase to $500.  If your property continues to be in violation at the time of any subsequent renewals then you may be charged a fee (in increasing increments of $250) up to a maximum of $1,000.  If you don’t pay the fees they will be assessed against the real estate as a “special charge.”

During the inspection, DNS will see if your property meets their minimum requirements.  You can read a summary of those requirements at DNS’ webpage dedicated to this new program.

Just as with the Residential Rental Certificate ordianance, DNS has the unfettered ability to draft and apply rules and regulations which are not required to be incorporated into the ordinance.  These rules and regulations can change at any time and do not have to be published.

Let me just provide you with two situations that clearly fall under the purview of this new ordinance but which I feel should not require any city involvement whatsoever. By no means are these the only two problematice examples that I foresee — there are many.

First, assume that you own a duplex and you currently have a tenant in the lower unit but because the upper tenant just broke the lease you upper unit is empty.  The upper unit is in pretty good shape but requires repainting and some minor repairs to get the unit into move-in condition for the next tenant.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example has actually happened to me on several occassions.  I was in the process of trying to locate a new tenant for the lower portion of my duplex.  Just as the city suggests, I have written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become my tenant.  My screening criteria is quite stringent.  I follow the adage that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant.  Because I also work a full-time job, I am not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both my stringent criteria and my schedule, my lower duplex remains vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance I would need to register my duplex with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect my property.

NOTE:  I have spoken with DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg and confirmed that my above examples (which I have crossed out) are inaccurate.  If you have a duplex and only 1 unit is vacant then you do not fall under the purview of the new ordinance.  You would only fall under the purview of the new ordinance if both units of the duplex were vacant for 30 days — as you would now have more than a 95% vacant property.  So I have had to revise my examples.

First, assume that you own a single family home that you operate as a rental property and your tenant just broke his/her lease and as such the property is now vacant.   The property will need a little bit of work (minor repairs and some painting) before you can turn it over.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example happens to many of my clients that have stringent screening criteria that applicants must meet before they can become tenants.  They are in the process of renting out a single family rental unit or both units of a duplex.  Just as the city reccomends they use a written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become a tenant.  Following the adage that I often teach at my seminars, that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant, my clients often have periods in which their rental units are vacant.  Sometimes becasue my clients work a full-time job outside of being a landlord, they not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both their stringent screening criteria and their busy schedules, their single famuly rental or both units of their duplex remain vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance they would need to register their rentals with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect their property.

I suppose things could be worse.  You could be standing in my client’s shoes – the guy I mentioned earlier — and have just been served with a notice from the city that you are in violation of its Vacant Building Recording ordinance.  My client is now placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether to ignore the city’s notice and risk the possibility of a fine and the future wrath of DNS or capitulating to the city and allowing it to inspect his unit despite the fact that it is occupied by a tenant and the city has no legal right to set foot in his rental property.  What would you do?

Tags: , ,

More (and More) Legislation Introduced That Will Affect Landlords

Nov 11

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

I’m not sure if it is just me but it seems like more and more legislation is popping up that affects landlords.  Maybe it is just because I am paying more attention to the rental industry then I used to — kind of like buying a new jacket, bike, or car and then noticing from that point forward how many other people also are wearing that same jacket, riding that same bike, or driving that same car.  Who knows?

Set forth below are 3 new pieces of legislation that will affect landlords and the rental housing industry in general:

1.     2009 Assembly Bill 543

This bill would bar any landlord from requiring certain payments and from making certain claims against a deceased tenant’s estate.  If passed this bill would prevent a landlord from making a claim against his/her deceased tenant’s estate for any rent owed under the lease  that becomes due after the deceased tenant’s personal belongings have been removed and the keys have been returned to the landlord.  Additionally the proposed bill precludes a landlord from requiring payment from a tenant or including a contrary provision in his/her lease in an attempt to circumvent the above.

Under current law, a landlord is able to file a claim against a deceased tenant’s estate for rent due under the lease if the landlord was unable to re-rent the unit.  I have to admit that after reading this bill for the first time I couldn’t believe that this issue was worthy of having a new statute created addressing it,  but I then remembered that over the last 6 months or so I have received at least 5 telephone calls from landlords that have had tenant’s pass away during their lease and who had questions about what they could and could not do with respect to the rent owed under the lease – so it must be more common then I first thought. 

2.     2009 Senate Bill 352

This proposed bill would require any plaintiff wishing to file a small claims lawsuit that has filed more than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay an increased filing fee and would also limit the amount that that plaintiff can sue for to $5,000o or less, but at the same time the bill would also allow any plaintiff that has filed less than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay a reduced filing fee and sue for up to $10,000.

Essentially, under this bill, if a plaintiff bringing a small claims action has filed 20 or fewer small claims actions (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) within the prior 365 days, then the amount claimed may not exceed $10,000 and the plaintiff must pay a filing fee equal to 150% of the regular fee (or $33).  If the plaintiff filing a small claims lawsuit has commenced more than 20 small claims lawsuits (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) in the previous 365 days, then the bill would limit the amount that can be sued for to no more than $5,000 and requires the plaintiff to pay a filing fee equal to 200% of the regular filing fee (or $44). 

The plaintiff must also include in their complaint a statement specifying how many small claims actions they have filed in the previous year.  Additionally, the plaintiff will also have to file an Affidavit with the Clerk of Courts indicating how many lawsuits they have filed in the prior year.  If a person misrepresents this information the court is required to award the opposing side $250 in damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.

I’m not sure who came up with this idea or how they think it is fair to penalize a person for legally using the court system in the past, but the concept of equal access to the courts seems to have fallen by the wayside under this bill.  Many large landlords and management companies that are attempting to collect debts from ex-tenants will be greatly affected by this bill.  This proposed bill DOES NOT apply to eviction actions but it DOES apply to any small claims lawsuit that is not an eviction, such as money judgments, attachments, garnishments or lien enforcements.

3.     2009 Senate Bill 274

This bill would require a landlord to change the locks to a tenant’s unit, or allow the tenant to do so, within 48 hours after being requested to do so by the tenant, in situations where the tenant can demonstrate that the are facing an imminent threat of physical harm from another individual.  Under current law, a tenant is legally allowed to terminate their tenancy and vacate a rental unit (even if they are under a lease for a specific term that has not expired), if the tenant or their child can prove that they face imminent threat of serious physical harm from another.  This new bill appears to allow the tenant the option of staying in the property if they wish and having their locks changed rather than leaving.

Specifically, the bill would require a landlord to change a tenant’s locks, or give the tenant permission to do so, if the tenant requests the lock change and provides the landlord with a certified copy of one of the following documents: (1) an injunction order protecting the tenant or child from a person, (2) a condition of release ordering a person not to contact the tenant, (3) a criminal complaint alleging that a person sexually assualted or stalked the tenant or her child, or (4) a criminal complaint filed against a person as a result of an arrest for committing a domestic abuse offense against the tenant. 

The only exception in which the landlord would not be required to change the locks (or allow the tenant to change the locks) would be if the individual that poses a serious risk of physical harm to the tenant is also a tenant in that same unit.  If that is the case, then the landlord would not have to change the locks to the unit unless the tenant requesting the lock change can provide a certified copy of either (1) an injunction directing the other tenant to avoid the residence of the tenant who is requesting that the locks be changed, or (2) a condition of release ordering that the other tenant not contact the tenant requesting that the locks be changed. 

If a tenant requests to have her locks changed and meets the other requirements of this proposed bill then the landlord will have 48 hours in which to change the locks.  The tenant shall be resonsible for the cost of the lock change.

Tags:

UPDATE ON MILWAUKEE’S PROPOSED MANDATORY RENTAL UNIT INSPECTION PROGRAM

Sep 23

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, DNS, Legislation, Residential Rental Inspection (RRI) Program / Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 1 Comment

A friend of mine was at a meeting this morning with the City of Milwaukee’s Budget Director and learned some more information on the City’s proposed mandatory rental unit inspection program.

First, the proposed ordinance is in the final stages of drafting and will be released in the near future.

Second, it will be a 5 year pilot program in the UWM area only.

Third, there will be a fee of $40 per landlord and a $35 per unit inspection fee.

Fourth, the pilot program must be approved by the city’s common council each and every year in order for it to continue.

Fifth, if a rental unit passes its 1st inspection then the unit will receive a 4 year compliance certificate and will not need to be reinspected until the 4 years expires.

NOTE:  MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION IN THIS POST IS NO LONGER ACCURATE – TO FIND OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE STATES GO TO MY NEW POST ON THE SUBJECT.

Tags: , ,

Public Hearing on AB 340 (Proposal to Restrict CCAP Access and Information) to Be Held on October 1, 2009 in Madison

Sep 18

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | No Comments

For those of you following my blog, you are well aware of my thoughts on State Rep. Marlin Schneider’s new legislative proposal to restrict access to and limiting information contained on CCAP (Consolidated Cort Automation Programs).  Schneider’s proposed legislation is referred to as AB (Assembly Bill) 340.

In fact, Patrick McIlheran of the Milwaukee Jornal Sentinel just wrote an article that addressed how AB 340 will hurt landlords.

AB 340 is currently in the Committee on Criminal Justice and that committee has just announced that a public hearing on AB 340 will be held on Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 10:15 am at 328 Northwest of the State Capitol Building in Madison.

If you can attend this hearing please consider doing so.  If you are unable to attend then please be sure and voice your opinion on this proposal to your state representative and/or senator and the members of the Committe on Criminal Justice.

We landlords will be at a great loss if we lose our access to CCAP  or are only able to receive certain information from CCAP.

Tags: ,