Just a Landlord

For most of my career I felt strongly that M-T-M was the only way to go if your tenants were lower income.  About a year ago I rethought this.  Okay I constantly rethink a lot of things we do on nearly a daily basis, it’s called optimization,  but this time we did a trial test of year leases.  I feel a lease for a term may be best in today’s environment, but have not recommended it across the board for other owners we work with.

My argument against year leases was that you could not compel them to pay the lost rent for the balance of the lease if they skipped out, yet had to keep the tenant to the end of the lease even if you would prefer they were gone.   The exceptions of course are nonpayment and documentable lease violations.   With a month to month it is 28 days without cause and 14 days with cause- no right to cure, speeding the process..

The following are possible advantages of using a year lease even if your tenants are marginally collectable at best:

Screening:  Tenants that refuse to sign a year lease because they don’t plan on being at one address that long are not worth renting to.

Collections: In a M-T-M  a 5 day can only be for rent due, not for other unpaid charges.  With a lease the 5 day can include unpaid deposit, late fees, utility charges etc.

Bad behavior:  In a M-T-M you can use a 14 day with no right to cure.  This does not lessen your burden of proof and does not make the 90 pound pit bull “puppy” leave any faster.  In fact it often causes the dog to stay for the remained of the tenants’ occupancy.  You can also give a 28 day notice without any reason (or 30 or 60 if that is what you have in your written agreement.)

In a year lease you can use a 5 day.  Sure they have the right to cure, but if the same breach occurs again with in the lease period you get to use a 14 day with no right to cure.  The five day has sped up the resolution of some issues tremendously.  Take the pit bull example. If the dog is gone within five days, never to return – great.  If on day 6 the dog is still there you can file with the court.  This can calm the other tenants and neighbors quicker because you seem more on top of the situation.

Yes, the tenant can argue that the breach did not exist.  They could argue  that with a 14 day notice under a M-T-M as well.  That is why using a 28 day without cause was a method that worked for M-T-M.  But you really do not want to be evicting willy nilly anyways.  That makes you look bad and harms your bottom line.  So adequate proof is not necessarily a bad thing.  Plus if you find a dog on April 4th and decide to give the tenant a 28 day rather than duke it out with a 14 Day you have to put up with them until May 31st and then file an eviction on June 1st if they are still there. So it could be late June when they are finally gone.   With a lease you could be in court as early as 18th or 19th

For me today it is use the year lease and document, document, document any breaches.  Then, if you need to go to court to evict be prepared to some sort of stipulation.  In the dog example you may wish to give them a move out that coincides with the last day of the month conditioned upon them keeping the dog elsewhere for those 12 days and paying the rent.

If the legislature gives us the same 5 Day rights under a M-T-M as we have under a year lease I may reconsider the use of leases, but I am not sure as I feel pretty strongly today that it is a bad sign if a tenant is unwilling to sign up for a year.

Ideally the legislature will also give us the right to use crime free addendums again.  That will help owners deal more proactively with disruptive behavior problems

 Real Estate Ideas for 2013

What can be done collectively to improve our businesses, save costs or generate additional revenue?

On January 1st I posted a list of ideas that I had that some of us could consider to collaboratively work on.  I intend to pursue one or two of the ideas presented and may entertain partnering with the right person or persons.

This post is the third of my more in depth notes on the ideas.  I will post others over the next week or so as time permits me to clean my notes into coherent sentences. If any of the topics interest you comment either on the list or directly to me at:Tim@ApartmentsMilwaukee.com

Part Three: 

Become better at sharing our collective knowledge 

The ApartmentAssoc@YahooGroups.com is good beginning.  However it does not work real well as a reference tool as the posts are not organized by topics nor apparently easily searchable for many users.

What if the archives were used to form a new reference tool, perhaps a Wikipedia style “Best Practices” Guide for Milwaukee rental owners.  My vision is a user contributed, user edited tool that would be a ready reference to many topics we discuss on these lists.

It would include everything that a property manager runs into. Who is the best plumber, what notice do you use for the tenant that decided that partying till 6 AM everyday is being neighborly.

Many of us know a lot, but none of us know it all. Things change in our industry nearly daily.   Contractors and suppliers who were the best may have become expensive  sloppy or retied.   New vendors and contractors come on the scene every day. Bad tenants learn new ways to circumvent screening. Laws change. Judges and Commissioners change their views on how laws are implemented.

Similarly a Mastermind Group could reap benefits if the right people were involved. Here is a good overview of how Mastermind groups work.

Another model is what groups like StartUpMKE are doing in the tech field.  It is similar to what the Apartment Association does, but they seem  more involved in actual business creation.

Lunch with  AASEW board members was an interesting idea.  If you don’t recall this you can read more about lunch with AASEW board members here.  When I look back on our prior attempt, I think this would work better if the sponsor board members would set a date, place and topic.  Then if there was enough interest for that particular meeting it would move forward.

Bottom line: There is power in shared knowledge and we should do more to harness that power

(Read about the law here)

Not sure what it means to you as a landlord?  Do not miss one of the most important Apartment Association meetings of the year!

Tristan Pettit, Heiner Giese, Bob Anderson of Legal Action of Wisconsin  and others will discuss the changes in the law and what it means to you as a landlord and how to be compliant.

When:   Monday June  18th 7 PM

Where:  The Best Western, 1005 S. Moorland Road, in Brookfield

Who: AASEW Attorneys Tristan Pettit and Heiner Geise along with Bob Anderson, a tenant advocate attorney to present an opposing view.

Cost:  Free to current AASEW members, $25 to guests, or $59 with a 2012 AASEW membership included.

The focus of the meeting will be on Wisconsin’s new Landlord Omnibus Law (Act 143).  We will have two landlord attorneys (myself and AASEW attorney Heiner Giese) and one tenant attorney (Bob Andersen of Legal Action of WI) on our panel.

We will discuss the major changes to the law, give our opinions as to how those changes will be interpreted by courts, and advise you as to what you will need to do to be in compliance with the new law.  Oh yeah . . .  and we will also answer your questions.

And you will get FREE food as well.

The meeting will be held at the Best Western Hotel located at 1005 S. Moorland Road in Brookfield WI.

Cost to attend is free to members of the AASEW and $25 for non-members (or choose to become a member and pay only $59 and avoid the $25 fee).

It should be a great evening of discussion and education.  I hope that all of you can attend.

The following is a pretty good overview of the new law from Margit Kelley, Staff Attorney at the WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL   The Legislative Council is a nonpartisan research agency of the Wisconsin Legislature.

Read their full analysis

Continue reading »

The Wisconsin Landlord Tenant Law Omnibus bill was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker around 4 PM March 21st, 2012.  You must be in compliance with the provisions for tenancies  entered into beginning April 1st.

One thing the bill does is add a new prohibited lease provision:

Continue reading »

The enrolled version of the bill (a copy with all the amendments  incorporated and as signed by the Governor)  was released late yesterday.

As you look at the part of your lease that addresses criminal activity I am thinking that adding “… unless the tenant could not reasonably have prevented the crime”  should keep your lease valid, but have not reviewed this in depth with our attorneys.

Now go modify your leases to take advantage of the benefits and to avoid running afoul of the other changes.  That is what we will be working on for the next ten days before a new lease is required.

The Landlord Omnibus bill was fast tracked, being introduced on 2/13/12,  passed by the Senate on March 14th, adopted by the Assembly on March 15th and will be signed into law on Mar 21st (tomorrow).  While the bill addresses many issues in a positive manner for landlords, it also is going to require revisions to your future rental agreements.

The changes required that I see so far are:

Continue reading »

Question:  If there is a  material falsification of information provided by a tenant on the  rental application, what are your options? (Granted a good screening process should have caught it).

Once you accept a tenant you must allow them to move in, even if they  materially falsified the app. This is covered under the ATCP 134:

ATCP 134.09(6) (6) FAILURE TO DELIVER POSSESSION. No landlord shall fail to deliver  possession of the dwelling unit to the tenant at the time agreed upon  in the rental agreement, except where the landlord is unable to  deliver possession because of circumstances beyond the landlord’s  control.

An interesting question would be if they lied about who they were,  i.e. gave a false name, could you refuse to let anyone but the person named on the lease to move in?

Preventing this? Hard. If you ran a credit report, that should have show other names used. A pre-acceptance home visit may have exposed the inconsistencies and extra adult.

This one bit us in the butt a few years ago. We were evicting a woman because her two adult daughters had moved in with her and were  performing prostitution in the basement of the building. We had an applicant for a different address who we accepted. One of my managers saw the woman we accepted in the waiting room and asked what she was doing her as she was the prostitute daughter of the tenant we were  evicting from Walker street.

We refused to allow the woman to take the other unit and gave her back all of her money. She got an attorney and they won the  argument in court. We were required to give her  $500 in addition to her earnest money, which we had already given back.

There was a discussion on the ApartmentAssoc@YahooGroups.com (link to home page) discussion list regarding charging a fee to a tenant who breaks a lease.

Liquidated damages, as they are referred to, are permitted in some states. For example in Florida you may give the tenant an option to be liable for the balance of the lease subject to mitigation or they can agree to liquidated damages up to two month’s rent. Most tenants seem to prefer the liquidated damages option because they know up front what they can expect if they must move before the end of the lease as opposed to needing to move to another locale and face owing perhaps eight or ten months rent.

However liquidated damages are not permitted in Wisconsin.  In fact having such language in your WI lease probably invalidates the entire lease. Why is this?

Continue reading »

Seems like a way to increase revenue a bit but there is one big gotcha to be aware of.  In WI if parking is charged separately or an additional charge then you must collect and pay sales tax on it.

A couple of years ago the Wisconsin Department of Revenue went around checking for owners who were charging extra for tenants to park or offering a lower rate to those who did not want parking.   The landlords involved had to pay sales tax that they should have collected plus interest and penalties.

See the WI Administrative Code Revenue  §11.48 (1) (b) (text below):

Tax 11.48 Landlords, hotels and motels. (1) LANDLORDS.

(b) The sales price from providing parking space for motor vehicles and aircraft and from providing docking and storage space for boats are taxable. If a separate charge is made for the parking, docking, or storage space, the charge is taxable. However, if a separate charge is not made and the price of a rental unit includes a charge for a
parking, docking, or storage space, and if similar units are rented at a reduced price if the parking, docking, or storage space is not utilized, the difference between the rental price of the 2 similar units is taxable as a charge for parking, docking, or storage.