Feb 09

For the past couple of years, we have sold out both the spring and fall sessions of Attorney Tristan Pettit’s AASEW Landlord Tenant Law Boot Camp.

It looks like we are on track to do the same for the upcoming February 18th, 2017 Boot Camp.

Last fall I waited too long to sign up my new staff members and could not get them in. I signed up three staff people very early for this one. ūüėČ

You may ask ‚ÄėWhy would Tim pay $537 plus wages to send three people to Boot Camp when he knows the laws so well?‚Äô

The answer is easy: One small mistake or missed opportunity will cost us far more than this. It is important that my folks know the law as WI landlord Tenant Law is not always what a reasonable person would assume it to be. And this is ever evolving, with both new laws, new interpretations by courts and new tricks by tenant advocates*. This is not the first time we’ve sent staff either.

This course is presented by Attorney Tristan Pettit. Tristan’s law practice focuses on landlord-tenant law, he is a current board member of the Apartment Association as well as former president, and drumroll please, he writes all the standard landlord tenant forms for Wisconsin Legal Blank.

If you want to go, now that my seats are secure ;-), you can sign up online or call Joy at the Association 414-276-7378 and reserve a spot.

http://www.landlordbootcamp2017.com

* Most “tenant advocates‚ÄĚ only advocate for tenants that break the rules. This ultimately costs the rest of the good tenants more in increased rents and decreased service or more noise and disruption‚Ķ but this is another story for another day.

Jul 29

There was a recent question about the legality of imposing a non-refundable $40 application fee in Wisconsin even if the prospective tenant was providing their own, current credit report.

ATCP 134.05(4)

(4)‚ÄāCredit check fee.

(a) Except as provided under par. (b), a landlord may require a prospective tenant to pay the landlord’s actual cost, up to $20, to obtain a consumer credit report on the prospective tenant from a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. The landlord shall notify the prospective tenant of the charge before requesting the consumer credit report, and shall provide the prospective tenant with a copy of the report.

(b) A landlord may not require a prospective tenant to pay for a consumer credit report under par. (a) if, before the landlord requests a consumer credit report, the prospective tenant provides the landlord with a consumer credit report, from a consumer credit reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis that is less than 30 days old.

Note: Paragraph (b) does not prohibit a landlord from obtaining a more current consumer credit check at the landlord’s expense.

Here, the $40 fee fails on two points. ¬†1) It exceeds the $20 cap, and 2) You can’t charge a fee at all if the tenant is providing a copy of their credit report that is less than 30 days old. ¬†Could the tenant forge a copy of their report that they are providing … sure. ¬†So I would not rely on that report, but would run my own at my cost. ¬†I would also compare the two copies as an honesty check.

How about if you call the fee something else like a processing fee?  Can you keep the money then? Again the Wisconsin landlord-tenant law is clear.

ATCP 134.02
(3)‚Äā”Earnest money deposit” means the total of any payments or deposits, however denominated or described, given by a prospective tenant to a landlord in return for the option of entering into a rental agreement in the future, or for having a rental agreement considered by a landlord. “Earnest money deposit” does not include a fee which a landlord charges for a credit check in compliance with¬†s.¬†ATCP 134.05 (3).

Some owners feel that they can ignore this and charge the fee to offset the rerental costs. What tenant will go after you in court because you kept 20 or 40 bucks that you may not have been entitled to? ¬†The risk here is that if a tenant does sue, ¬†you owe the tenants’ court fees and attorney’s costs. ¬†So you are risking perhaps thousands of dollars to keep a couple of bucks here and there.

Personally, I find it more important to attract tenants and quickly fill vacancies with the best applicants than it is to recover the minimal amount of a credit report.  If I were looking for an apartment I would start with the ones that do not have an app fee.  That makes those owners charging the fees less competitive and they will lose more than the fees charged.  The old saying pennywise and pound foolish kind of fits here.

 

Jul 12

A reader on the ApartmentAssoc at YahooGroups list asks in regards to denying applications:

¬†What if there isn’t an alternative applicant and it’s not credit related? (ie criminal record or just don’t like them…Lool). I never really cared and don’t give a reason other than “your application has been denied”. Today was the first time an applicant repeatedly called wanting a reason.

In WI, excluding Dane County/Madison as they are a separate state, ;-), you are not required to give a reason. ¬†In most cases a simple “Sorry your app was not accepted” is the best answer.

However, with that being said, you should consider having a mechanism in place where the applicant can request the reason if they are insistent. We ask that they request the reason in writing and we respond in writing.  This gets away from any allegations that someone said something they did not.

Think back to your own experiences – when someone is elusive or outright refuses to answer a question your first thought is they have something to hide. The more the other party pushed back the more you knew you were on to some kind of wrong doing.

¬†Rejection for criminal record¬†is easy if you have a written criteria. ¬†If they fail the criteria you can point it out. ¬†So if one of your criteria is ‘We will reject applicants who have had drug related felonies in¬†the past x years’ and they were convicted of having a ton of cocaine ¬†in their possession ¬†x years – 1 then¬†the answer is a ‘sorry – your 12/14/20xx conviction prevents us from renting to you at this time. ¬†You can apply again in a year.’

“Just don’t like them” is dangerous grounds, especially if they are a member of a protected class under federal state or local fair housing rules.

You don’t have to like your tenants, you just need to be sure they will pay rent, not damage the place, not conduct illegal activities out of your property and not anger the neighbors. ¬†If they meet all those requirements I can “like” just about any prospective tenant.

Jul 28

It appears that the Wisconsin Legislature snuck their version of the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act into the 2009 budget, effectively making seller financing illegal for 1-4 family buildings.  Exceptions to this rule are sellers who are owner occupants, people who hold an expensive mortgage broker license and a few other limited exceptions that will not effect most of us.

The effective date of the law was 1/1/2010.  Yet nearly seven months into it none of the real estate pros I spoke to knew about it.

I accidentally stubbled upon the  WI law while researching the HUD proposal to prohibit seller financing.  Low and behold on one of the HUD pages WI and TX were listed as states that had enacted their own version of the Safe Mortgage Act.

.
Continue reading »

ÔĽŅ
preload preload preload