Jan 23

Busy good, but still busy.

May 15

Sewer, water and municipal service fees have become a major operating expense.  I’m sure these runaway fees have lead to the failure of many newer, under capitalized owners.

Last month the law changed on municipal utility charges, making it more practical to have tenants be responsible for these charges.  We owe a lot of thanks to the work done by Gary Goyke in making this law a reality, as well as the support of the members of the Wisconsin Apartment Association, the Apartment Associations of South Central WI and of course the members of the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI

In addition to the potential financial benefit to owners, there is a societal and environmental benefit as this will certainly result in conservation.  No more walking into a unit, only to see the tenant thawing dinner by running cold water over frozen meat for half an hour.  Remember when you paid for heat and would find windows open on sub freezing days or when you paid for hot water and found your basements being used as a laundromat for friends and family.

The most important aspects of the law effect the 2015 billings.  However there are some things we as owners need to do now to ramp up.

First, you cannot bill tenants directly for utilities that are not separately metered.  This means for multiple unit properties the water needs to be separated and an additional meter added.  In older Milwaukee duplexes this is not going to be a major job.  The two plumbing contractors I spoke to felt it would be a $600-1000 per duplex  to separate the water and install a second meter horn.  Remember that in this style building you only need to separate the cold water to the lower unit faucets and toilet as well as the feed to the lower water heater and possibly laundry facilities.

Older side by sides and four families will take more work, read $, as they typically have a single cold feed to the upper units.

Second, for the benefit of tenants, owner occupants and the city’s ability to collect their utility bills; we must urge the city to go to monthly billings

Attorney Tristan Pettit shared the attached doc from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities that should be the first step in the road map to making the change.

Dec 26

Our company buys a lot of products from Amazon – from office supplies to maintenance parts to bug spray.

We do this for no altruistic reason,  Amazon is less expensive and faster for many items. Amazon Prime rocks if you buy even a modest amount!

Amazon has a really cool program where they give 1/2% of your purchases to a charity of your choice. Our company chose Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. Children’s does good work and have helped my granddaughter as well as many thousands of other kids.

If you are an Amazon user, I would encourage you to sign up and let your purchases help an organization you believe in. If you are lost for a worthy charity – Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin is a great choice.

More info at:

http://smile.amazon.com/

Nov 01

My wife, Carmen Ballering, is preparing for Miami Art Basel (Dec 5-8) If you’ve been to my office you’ve seen her house paintings in acrylic. Crooked Houses is done in uninflated balloons and acrylic over canvas.

You can see a lot of her work including couture fashion from balloons at GotLatex.com

crooked_houses

Crooked Houses by Carmen Ballering

Oct 22

A reader of the ApartmentAssoc Yahoo Group questions how the new landlord tenant bill affects leases that attempt to deal with criminal activity.  The new law is:

704.44 (9) Allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant based solely on the commission of a crime in or on the rental property if the tenant, or someone who lawfully resides with the tenant, is the victim, as defined in s. 950.02 (4), of that crime.

704.44 (9) is a prohibited lease provision. Therefore a lease is void if it allows you to evict the tenant solely because of a crime that the tenant or an authorized co occupant were the victim of.   The provision was meant to be a protection for domestic violence victims.

As I read this an example would be if the tenant’s door is broken.

  • If the damage was caused by the tenant and you use your lease to evict them for the damage all is good.
  • If the damage occurred during a burglary and you attempt to evict them based on a lease provision, you would fail and possibly be in trouble. It would be wrong even without this law to evict a victim of a crime.  ‘Oh, you were robbed of your tv and radio – well now you are losing your home too because having your door broken during a robbery is a lease violation’. – bad landlord.
  • If the door was broken by the ex boyfriend that they had a restraining order against, you would most certainly be in trouble.  But that is the current law under 106.50 (5m) (dm).
  • On the other hand if the door was broken during a robbery committed by a rival drug dealer and the police report indicated that, then a lease provision such as a crime free addendum would be fine.

I agree it is not the perfect language. However this is far better than the prior prohibition against a lease that permitted you to evict the tenant for a crime they could not have reasonably prevented.

Under the new wording you can evict a tenant if they fail to exercise reasonable control of the property.   An example is if the tenant’s grandson who does not live at the property comes over and sells drugs out of grandma’s unit.  Under the current law you would have a hard time crafting a lease that would be legal and permit you to evict as a means of stopping the drug traffic because it is very likely that granny could not reasonably prevent the activity. The only answer would be wait until the Police send an angry letter about the nuisance activity.  Under the new law your lease will be able to address this because granny is not a victim.

His second question is:

What happens if a tenant gets a Disorderly Conduct ticket, or a ticket for possession of marijuana, or a ticket for… Was there a commission of a crime?

You do not have to differentiate between citations and crimes in the above.  The tenant was not a victim, they were the perpetrator of the act and therefore a lease provision that permits eviction would be valid under both the old and new law. Plus the law acknowledges that criminals are not victims of their own crimes

§950.02 (4) (b) “Victim” does not include the person charged with or alleged to have committed the crime.

However if the tenant was the victim of what could be considered a criminal act, I think you must treat the tenant as a victim regardless if the perp was given a citation or a state charge.  So if in the prior door broken by a burglar example you would be wrong in evicting a tenant even if the guy who did it only received a muni citation.

There will be more on this as a discussion of how to make the Crime Free Lease or addendum work within this new law.


preload preload preload