by John H Fischer on September 2nd, 2010
Can you tell it is the first week of the month? Last week I did three blog entries in a row in three days… and now we have gone a week since the last one. In addition to normal month end activities, this last weekend was an exciting one. The Kenosha Police Department has been working with the Kenosha Landlord Association putting together an 8-hour landlord educational program. The police dept got a grant to offer this course 18 times to classes of 25 people each, and this last Saturday was the first time it was offered. I helped them write the portion of the class that covered basic landlord-tenant law, screening and fair housing and was also asked to present those classes. This level of cooperation between the police department and properties owners is… well.. I can’t say enough. We need more of this all over the state.
However, my Thursday morning blog posts are Dr. Rent Radio Show previews. The Dr. Rent Show can be heard on WNRB-LP, 93.3 FM in the Wausau area from 5 to 6 PM.
This week, we are covering questions that have come up. We didn’t get through all of the questions last week, so we will start with those we didn’t get to. We will start with covering the rights of a tenant when the landlord faces foreclosure. We will next cover how to terminate a lease because of noise complaints. We then have a couple of questions on when to use 5-Day and 14-Day notices and also when you can actually file the eviction action.
A few new questions came up which will get added to this list. If your tenant is a student, is there any reason why you should refuse payment of the rent from a parent? If you have a month-to-month agreement, can you change the rules and polices? Someone asked a question on my CW blog about army worms in the yard, is this a landlord issue or a tenant one? Finally, a landlord has multiple tenants on a lease, but is only having a problem with one of them. Can the landlord evict just the problem person or do all tenants have to be listed on the eviction filing?
Last week we started the show talking about Wausau’s Housing Task Force. After spending the first couple of meetings going over all of the testimony from the three public hearings, we took the issues that were brought up and separated them into a number of areas to be addressed separately. The first issue that the Task Force started looking at our last meeting was defining landlord and tenant responsibilities. Normally, the City will address a problem with the property owner, however are there times when the City should also include the tenant? It is not the intent of the Task Force to dictate to landlords what their contract terms should be. It is also not the intent to let landlords off the hook.
To make this issue easier, we decided to separate residential rentals into two categories: single family/duplex and all others (multi-family). Empirical evidence shows that the vast majority of problems are from single family and duplex rentals, so that is where we are going to focus our attention for now. Right now, we are just coming up with suggestions and this task force cannot make decisions, we can only make recommendations. Some of the items where the group concurred that the City should be more aggressive with the occupants of the property include pet problems and putting garbage in proper containers and following ordinances about storage of the containers and when to get those containers to the curb and back. Living condition/cleanliness also tends to be an occupant issue. Property owners are responsible for structural issues. They are also responsible for supplying the garbage containers for the tenant’s to use. Lawn care could go either way depending on how it is written up on the lease. A good policy would be to contact the landlord, but also let the landlord know that if lawn care is a tenant issue, provide the City with the tenant contact information and a copy of the lease where it establishes lawn care as a tenant problem.
Again, I am not saying this is what the City is going to start doing. These were some ideas the Task Force came up with and when we meet again the evening of September 7th, we will continue these discussions. If the Task Force decides these are the way the City should proceed, we can then recommend it to Public Health and Safety Committee.
We also had time on last weeks radio show for a couple of my long list of questions. The first was a smoking ban established by a landlord. The landlord dictated no smoking in the units, in the common areas, or on the grounds. This restriction is becoming more and more common. However, the question had to do with the sidewalk and street in front of the rental, the landlord also said there could be no smoking there. Can they do that? Well, is if the street and sidewalk are private and on private property, it falls within the “grounds” provision. However, if it is a public sidewalk and street, all in the public right of way, I personally don’t understand how a landlord can dictate a rule to a tenant for the tenant to follow when they are off the premises. It would be like telling the tenant they can’t smoke when they are at the neighbors. My personal opinion (afterall, I am not a lawyer), is that the landlord cannot regulate a tenant smoking when they are off the property.
Two questions came from the Central Wisconsin Apartment Association in Stevens Point. These were just policy questions, and were asked of all members for their thoughts. The first was tenant painting. The consensus was that allowing tenants to paint is a bad idea. The problem is that often they can cause more damage than improvements. I have personally seen tenants get paint on the wood trim, the carpets, and even paint over outlets where they couldn’t be used. Even though every landlord who responded, including myself, indicated that our leases prohibit that, I did indicate that in the soft rental market in the Wausau Area, I have made exceptions and if tenants ask about painting, I will give them verbal permission without changing the lease provision. I will inform them that it has to be returned to the same color it was when they moved in or they will be charged for me to do that, and also they will be charged if I have to deal with paint where paint shouldn’t be. Since I have started giving verbal permission over a year ago, I have yet to have a bad experience.
The next policy question had to do with the common problem of tenant’s not paying the last month’s rent and using the security deposit. The landlord then doesn’t have the deposit to cover damage items or unpaid water bills. The policy question was about charging a larger deposit. First, make sure you can (this isn’t allowed in Madison). My suggestion was that I will charge a larger deposit based on my underwriting and tenant risk. If the tenant has a cat, I will charge a larger deposit ($200 more than normal) to help cover the additional damages that might occur. Also, if I am taking tenant with a high risk of default (recent eviction for non-payment), and they cannot provide me with a qualified co-signer, I may ask for a double-deposit. That way if I evict as soon as a rent payment is missed, I have enough deposit to cover it.
It is not unusual for landlords to ask for “last month’s rent and deposit” up front. Just keep in mind, that any money received by the landlord that is more than one month’s pre-paid rent needs to be treated as a security deposit according to ATCP Rule 134.02. Often the local market will dictate if a landlord can charge a larger deposit. And if you are going to change the amount of a deposit on a case by case basis, be sure to follow fair housing laws and don’t change the terms because of a protected class (in my case, having pets and high credit risk are not protected classes).
Well… I suppose I need to get some bills paid and then finish checking out some units that just came vacant. Until 5 PM this evening when I am on the air… HAPPY RENTING!
by John H Fischer on August 26th, 2010
Here we go with blog post number three in as many days… don’t get used to this though folks. Fridays are normally pretty busy days. Plus, I have to prepare for a class I will be giving in Kenosha on Saturday, a class being put on by the police department who has started working together with rental property owners to address crime. The hope is that this model can be expanded to other Wisconsin cities.
But, it is Thursday and you had to know a blog post would be coming. Thursday evening, from 5-6 PM, is the Dr. Rent Radio Show on WNRB-LP, 93.3 on your FM radio dial (assuming you are in the greater Wausau area and the wind is blowing our 6 watt signal in your general direction). And, on Thursday mornings I try to do a blog post that gives you a quick glance at tonight’s show, and gives you a summary of what you missed last week.
Questions, Questions, Questions! This week has been full of questions, I probably have two weeks worth of radio shows. Normally I do questions then my main topic of the day, but doing it that way now, it will take weeks to get to my main topic. So, we will hit the main topic first. The Wausau Housing Task Force met again this week and the first issue on the table is landlord-tenant responsibilities. When should the inspections department be going after the property owner? When would it be more productive for the inspections department to be going after the occupant? That is our first item we are trying to work through. Details on this on tonight’s show. (The Housing Task Force will meet again the evening of September 7th.)
I am sure that I will not be able to get through all of these questions on tonight’s show, but here are some of the questions that have come up…
- Can a landlord make a rule about no smoking on the street or sidewalk in front of the rental property?
- What are my thoughts on letting tenants paint their units?
- What are my thoughts on getting a larger deposit because many tenants don’t pay their last month’s rent?
- A tenant was told by the bank foreclosing on the landlord they have to be out in a week, can the bank do that? What are the tenant’s rights in a landlord foreclosure?
- The tenant is generating a number of noise complaints, what is the best way to terminate their rental agreement?
- When a tenant is issued a 5-Day Notice and doesn’t comply, is the next step a 14-Day Notice?
- Can you issue a 14-Day Notice and file for eviction on the same day to save time?
See? A very full week for questions.
Last week, I handled a question from a tenant who moved out in mid-July and as of mid-August hadn’t received their deposit back. They wanted to know how long they had to wait before taking their landlord to court for the deposit (actually, double the deposit). Although the easy answer would have been 21 days, as that is how long the landlord has to return the deposit in Wisconsin, I had to play my own game of 20 questions in order to give an answer.
They moved in mid-July, and it is unusual for a lease to end mid-month. I have seen where they do, it is just not common so I had to ask when the lease actually ended. They indicated they were on a verbal month-to-month and gave verbal notice the beginning of July. Verbal… oh how I dislike anything verbal. Had they given written notice to the landlord very early in July, the contract end date would be July 31st, and the 21 days would start then. (Even though the rental agreement was verbal, under state law, notice to terminate it MUST be in writing.) If a tenant vacates the property before that lease end date, they can start that 21 day “clock” earlier by giving the landlord WRITTEN notice that they are OUT, that they have VACATED (past tense). Technically, because everything was verbal, the month notice didn’t technically start until the landlord knew the tenant was out… mid-July. This means that the move out notice was effective mid-August, and since most leases end the last day of the month, the tenant was technically under contract until August 31st. So, no only has the 21-Day clock not even started yet, if the landlord wanted to be a stickler about things, they can legally bill the tenant for August rent (if the landlord made a reasonable effort to re-rent the property).
The next question had two parts to it. The first part had to do with a landlord charging a tenant for new carpet. The landlord claims the tenant damaged the carpet to the point it had to be replaced, and the landlord then charged the tenant for that carpet. There is case law that allows the landlord to charge replacement cost. If the carpet originally cost $500 when it was put in, but a similar quality carpet today costs $800, landlords can use today’s costs. However, landlords do need to take into consideration how much use they already got out of the carpeting. If new carpeting was put in a rental unit, and after a few months, the tenant moves and damaged the carpet to the point it needed to be replaced, full replacement cost is reasonable. However, in this question, the tenant had been there 5 years, and the tenant believes the carpet was not new when they moved in. In this case, the landlord cannot charge for full replacement cost because they got many years of use out of the carpet. Exactly how many years of use did they lose can vary based on a number of factors. Personally, I use 10 years as my carpet life. If a carpet is 5 years old, I will charge the tenant ½ of the replacement cost. However, if the carpet is 12 years old, I will very seldom charge the tenant anything if it needs to be replaced.
I stated that there are a number of factors that play a role in the life of a carpet, and that leads me to the second half of the question. The tenant is disabled and uses a wheel chair. The landlord knew when renting to the tenant, that the tenant was in a wheel chair. The damage caused to the carpet was caused, allegedly, by the wheel chair. The question the tenant had, is in this case, would that not be considered normal wear and tear? My answer… maybe. To be honest, I don’t know if wheel chairs cause more wear to carpet than foot traffic, and if so, what kind of damage. I did let this tenant know that if they can get people who understand carpeting (retailers, installers, etc) to testify in court as to the changes in wear and tear caused by wheel chairs, that may be a valid defense.
Finally, a tenant was on a year to year lease that ended in May. The tenant had found a different place and moved without giving the landlord any advance notice. They turned in the keys at the end of May. The landlord is charging them for June rent because there was no notice.
As we talked about earlier, if this were a month-to-month agreement, that would be perfectly acceptable. But on a year-to-year agreement, that is probably not the case. A residential lease cannot automatically renew unless the landlord gave the tenant some kind of advance notice. Some leases will say that if the landlord and tenant don’t give any notice by a certain date (30 to 60 days before lease end), it will renew for another year, or maybe renew on a month-to-month basis. Other agreements will be for a set term, ending on a certain date but will have a requirement for a tenant to give 30 or 60 days notice if they are leaving. Those provisions are fine in non-residential leases, but in order to be enforceable in a residential lease, the landlord has to remind the tenant, IN WRITING, between 15 and 30 days before the deadline, that such deadline exists. If this reminder is done, the automatic renewal provision is valid. However, if there is no reminder notice, the landlord cannot hold the tenant to the automatic renewal.
That was last week’s show and based on my list of questions, this week’s show will be just as informative. I promise, no more blog posts this week… so until next week, HAPPY RENTING!
by John H Fischer on August 25th, 2010
Look at this… 2 days – 2 blog entries. There have been times when I have felt guilty because I was only able to come up with something to write about once a week, for my Thursday radio show post… And, now here I am feeling guilty that I am coming out with a new post even though yesterday’s post is still fresh in the minds of many people.
However, I view my blog as a journal… a diary of sorts. It allows me to take the things that are in my head and put them down in writing. A friend of mine, Dino, did a blog post lately about bucket lists. In a way, this blog is a substitute for something that I wanted to do… I wanted to write books. And with my blog, I am writing a book, or maybe many books, a few pages at a time. I am leaving a written history of who I am, of what made me who I am, what is important to me, and what I believe in. The views and opinions stated in these blog posts are my views. They are open for debate, and I like debate, because it is only through debate and interaction that I learn if my views, those things I think are right, can stand up to scrutiny.
That introduction was important because it gets into why I have posted a couple of things in a couple of days. Yesterday’s blog post was a list of things I just don’t understand, things that the logic of which completely fail me. And, I was hoping to get feedback that would help explain these things I don’t understand. So far, the feedback has been that I am not the only one who doesn’t understand these things… maybe I am not insane and a ranting lunatic after all. Today’s post is about something that has been bothering me since a conversation I had yesterday evening. It bothers me a lot.
After the short city council meeting, I was invited to a social gathering and many of those there were also landlords. Of course, my seat on the Wausau Housing Task Force is a big deal to these local property owners. It is through me that their voice is heard, therefore they want to know from me what the group is discussing, what type of things we are proposing, where the system is, and share with me their concerns for what we have talked about so far.
I am smart enough to know the comments of one single person does not reflect the thoughts and ideas of the entire group, but that does not prevent me from allowing the thoughts of one person to really touch me – and disappoint me.
The question came up on landlord licensing, because that was one of the biggest topics of contention. The hope was with me as a part of the Task Force, that topic would come off the table. The truth is, although licensing is still on the table, it is a ways down the list. Based on the testimony at the three hearings, there are a number of issues that the City can take a look at. Although licensing is still on the table, it is not a foregone conclusion at this time. And, we, as a group, wont be looking at it more in depth until we can come with some ideas that better address some of the other more pressing issues.
I did mention that it was important to the Wausau Housing Task Force, that when coming up with rules or policies or programs to address problems, that care must be taken that these solutions address the people who are problems without putting an undo burden on those who are not a problem. One example was possibly using licensing as a remediation tool. If a property owner is contributing to blight, they may have to go through some type of licensing/inspection procedure as a tool to help solve the problem. This would address bad owners without putting a burden on good owners.
And this is when the comment came. The comment was made that this younger generation (specifically me) didn’t understand freedom, didn’t like freedom, would just give freedom away. Here is the city wanting to take freedom away and here I am, agreeing with them. And, he said it was partially his fault and the fault of his generation of not instilling in my generation the importance of freedom.
I held my temper… and I held my tongue, both very hard for me to do.
I held it then, but it has festered all night and I am not going to hold it now.
Don’t tell me that I don’t understand the importance of freedom. Many of my beliefs focus around people having freedoms. I am a supporter of gun rights and concealed carry, not as a 2nd Amendment thing, but as a personal freedom thing. I am pro-choice, as I believe a woman should have the right to choose. I am a supporter of gay marriage, as I think all should have the freedom to fall in love and be a family. Right there you will find issue where conservatives will disagree with me, and liberals will disagree with me.. that is why I am neither.
Don’t tell me that I don’t understand the importance of freedom. Why did I voluntarily sign up to serve? Why did I spend years on the Iron Curtain ensuring that our freedoms were not taken away? Why was I willing to lay my life on the line to “uphold and defend the Constitution” if I don’t understand the importance of freedom?
With freedom, comes responsibility. Your freedom cannot come at the expense of the right of someone else. And, yes, I personally feel that having your housing be safe and code compliant, especially if it is rental housing… that is a right. You, as a landlord don’t have the freedom to rent someone their home, where they live, a basic need, when you know that housing is not safe and does not pass reasonable building and housing code.
Does the younger generation not appreciate the values of our freedoms? I haven’t seen that. Do liberals not appreciate the values of our freedoms? Sometimes, but I can say the same about some conservatives.
Do I, personally, appreciate the value of our freedoms?
More than you can ever appreciate person whom I spoke to last night who may or may not read this, who I will grant the respect (probably not deserved) of not mentioning by name… but you know who you are.
by John H Fischer on August 24th, 2010
The newest front page article at Citizen Wausau discusses what I like to call YPS (pronounced “yipps”) – which stands for Young Professional Syndrome. I don’t understand YPS. But, then I realize there are a number of things I just don’t get.
Let us start with YPS. If you look at Weston, they are doing what they can to attract “Young Professionals.” So is Wausau, so is every other wanna-be metropolitan area. Why? What about 30-sometings, 40-somethings, empty-nesters… etc? Why don’t we care about these other groups of people and put the time and research into seeing what they want? Why can’t a community look at its strengths and play to them, instead of changing to try to bring in that same group that every other community is also fighting for (a fight that “real” metropolitan areas have a decided advantage in)?
Another thing I don’t understand as looking at all of the political signs on the side of the road. Why are positions such as the Clerk of Courts and the Sheriff elected? These are basically administrative management jobs. One would think you would want certain qualifications to hold these positions, however the only real qualification you need is the ability to get elected.
I am sure that some people could probably make good arguments for these to be elected positions instead of hired, staffing ones. However, I find it hard to believe that even people who support these being elected positions could justify a good reason for the positions to be partisan. Does it matter if the Clerk of Courts is a democrat or republican? Really? Should these highly administrative positions not be non-partisan like city council seats, mayors and judges?
Speaking of politics, I have a hard time understanding the passion. Don’t get me wrong, how this country, this state, this county, our cities are led is important. But take a look at the online discussions when it comes to political issues. Look at the ads, listen to the talk shows. The level of emotion that some people have, it gets down to the essence of their being. I have never been a fan of political apathy, but the zealots on both sides who are so devoted to their cause that they will not let the truth get in the way of some good talking points… I don’t understand how that is more helpful than it hurts the system.
Since I mentioned political apathy, there is another thing I don’t get. We get to vote. We get to decide who represents us. We get to decide what type of government we want. We have a choice. I will admit that far too often there really aren’t many good choices and you have to choose which option offends you the least – but it is still a choice. It simply amazes me how many people don’t choose to choose.
I don’t get the public’s fascination with certain people or topics that really don’t have anything to do with anything. Why do I care if Brett Farve is wearing green or purple or bubble wrap for that matter? Why do I care if Tiger Woods is still married or not? Why do I care if Lindsey Lohan went clubbing or not? I don’t care about any of those things. Most people I talk to really don’t care about most of those things. But someone must care, because they are on my TV, on my radio, in my paper.. etc.
I don’t understand quantum physics. Of course… who really does. (Though I have tried, really.)
Speaking of higher educational items, I don’t understand the need for every person to have a college degree. Twenty years ago, many jobs only required a high school diploma. Why do these same jobs require degrees now? They really don’t, but if you have a high school graduate and college graduate going after the same job, even though the college degree does nothing for the job, they just “seem” more qualified. So, now you have an expensive piece of paper and loans you have to pay to get the same job that you could have gotten a few years ago without the additional expense. Don’t misunderstand me, I think that the desire to learn and self-improvement says a lot about a person. However, I have no less than 4 degrees from some pretty good schools and to be honest, those pieces of paper didn’t do nearly as much to get me where I am as my work ethic has. I doubt that I will ever be as successful as my father, who has never had to look for a job, job offers come to him. Who is happy with his work and his life… who never made it past 9th grade.
I don’t understand how a nation that was created by immigrants is constantly wanting to close the doors. Time and time again, a large group immigrates here, and then wants to change the rules and make it harder for the next group. Right now, the immigration policies are focusing on Mexico and national security is a great talking point. But having those that are here now limit the ability for the next group of people to come is nothing new and has been going on for 3 or 4 centuries now.
Finally, I don’t understand how we are ever going to get “energy independent” when it seems like no matter which form of “green” energy you decide to use, it is not the right one. Water power causes too much harm to the environment. Biomass is going to kill us with air particles. Windmills are unsightly (or will cause problems with migrating birds who fly into them). No matter which form of energy we decide to pursue, each has its risks, each has its plusses and minuses. If there were some perfect method of generating energy without any downside, I am certain we would have figured it out already and would be using it almost exclusively by now.
Actually, I should not have said finally, because that seems to imply these are the only things that I don’t understand. There are many many things that I don’t understand… these are simply the ones I pondered during my last drive from home to the office.
by John H Fischer on August 19th, 2010
What a stressful week it has been. The Chuck’s alone, based on previous posts, are trying to kill me. They could have clinched the playoff spot on Sunday, but decided to wait until the last game on Monday. They could have clinched the division title last night, but are going to have to do that tonight in do-or die fashion again. And then the whole ticket fiasco….
The Chucks are not the only drama in my life. I have a couple of tenant situations which are quickly coming to a head. Although I teach classes on smart property management, I break most of my own rules and I have been dealing with a number of problem tenants who should have been evicted long ago. Although most realize the effort I am making to work with them, and therefore make an effort to work with me, there are a few who are clearly taking advantage of my “Mr. Nice Guy” nature. I refuse to be taken advantage of, so I have no less than 5 units who are at some point in the eviction process. Add with the entire day on Tuesday spent on lawn mowing duties, and you can see how a week can get away from me.
Thursday has really snuck up on me this week, I didn’t even fully realize what day it was until I heard the garbage truck coming down the hill this morning. But Thursday it is, and time for another installment of the Dr. Rent Show on WNRB-LP, 93.3 FM, from 5PM to 6PM.
This show is going to be another show entirely devoted to questions. A tenant on a verbal month-to-month agreement moved out in mid-July and here it is mid-August. They don’t have their security deposit back yet, what is their next step in collecting it? A tenant is being charged to replace the carpet, but the tenant was there for five years and the carpet was not new when they moved in, can the landlord do this? Also, we had a question about wear and tear on a carpet, what type of things can effect wear and tear? Does a tenant being in a wheelchair cause more wear? Finally, a year-to-year lease ended in March, but the landlord is charging the tenant for April rent, can they do that?
Last week’s main topic of Wausau’s Housing Task Force was talked about in last Thursday’s blog post, so no need to re-hash that here. The questions we covered last week were actually pretty easy ones.
First, a call from a tenant who is late in the rent and the landlord is telling them they need to leave, how long must the landlord give them to leave. If the rent is late, depending on the type of rental agreement, the landlord can either give the tenant notice that the rent needs to be paid within 5 days or they need to leave; or the landlord can give the tenant notice they need to leave within 14 days. These notices have to be in writing and the statutes are very specific in how these notices are to be delivered. Once the end dates of those notices have come and gone, the landlord cannot force you out. Only the sheriff can force you out, and they need a court order to do so. So, after those notices end, the landlord would need to file an eviction action. From the date of filing to the date of hearing, about 3 weeks will pass. If there is no good defense for the rent not being paid, an eviction order will be granted and once this is given to the sheriff, then it is in their hands. The Sheriff only has 10 days to execute the writ. I have seen the Sheriff give someone the weekend to move, I have also seen them tell the tenant they have 5 minutes.
In a different question, the landlord wants to show a tenant’s rental property to a prospective renter, they called in the morning wanting to show it that afternoon. Can they do that? Under normal circumstances, no. In residential rentals, a landlord can enter the unit to show it to a new tenant. They don’t need the current tenant’s “permission”, they only need to give proper notice. That proper notice is 12 hours. However, check your lease. If there was a properly executed Non-Standard Rental Provision that allowed for different advance notice, then the notice provisions in the Lease would trump the statutes.
Finally, my favorite question was not a question asked of me. I was talking to another person who handles a large volume of landlord-tenant calls and shared a recent call that they had. A tenant wanted to plant a flower garden in their yard, and the landlord was saying no. How can the tenant make the landlord say yes? (The landlord inferred at lease signing they could do this.) Inferred? Any promises made by the landlord need to be in writing. Without written permission, there is nothing that can be done to force the landlord to allow for a tenant to have a garden. And, there are good reasons for this. I do allow this in some of my rentals (duplexes and homes where the tenant does the lawn care), but it has to be well managed. The tenant needs to replant the lawn when they vacate, and most importantly, they have to show me where this is going and they must call diggers hotline first. I don’t need them digging up the electrical, cable or gas service, or the septic field in properties with wells.
Two other quick items of note… WNRB-LP is having a fund-raiser this weekend. As most know, we are a volunteer station. Our operating funds come from grants (when we can find them) and donations. This is our highest-profile fund-raiser to date: We are sponsoring a concert. The concert will be this Saturday, August 21st, 2010 at Dale’s Weston Lanes. The concert is scheduled to start at 7 PM with doors opening at 6. After a couple of warm-up bands, our headliner is scheduled to take the stage around 11-ish. Headlining our concert is a Chicago group called Losing Scarlet. Tickets are $10 in advance (at the WNRB station at 1109 6th Street, at the County Market at 18th Avenue, and at Trigs on 17th Avenue). They are also available to purchase at the door at Dales for $12. In addition to the concert, the radio station is hosting a “Meet and Greet” with Losing Scarlet at the WNRB studio on Saturday afternoon at 3:30.
For one last little bit of self-promotion, the class schedule for the UWMC fall continuing education series will be coming out soon. I will be offering four classes as part of the fall session. I will post a little more information as the dates get closer, but if you were interested, put on your calendar now the following dates:
Top Ten Mistakes Landlords Make, a 90 minute class being offered on September 21st.
Debt Collection Strategies, a 90 minute class being offered on September 28th
How To class on Evictions, a 90 minute class being offered on October 5th.
And, my favorite class, Landlord-Tenant Law in Wisconsin. This class is 6 hours, we do 90 minute classes once a night for four weeks, the class runs from October 12th to November 2nd.
Until I see you on the radio, HAPPY RENTING!
by John H Fischer on August 18th, 2010
THE CHUCKS WIN!!!
The Wisconsin Woodchucks put an exclamation point on the race to the play-off’s with a very convincing 6-0 win against the La Crosse Loggers on Monday. I missed the game because of a special meeting I was invited to. I had been asked to help draft the questions being posed to the gubernatorial candidates in their August 25 debate.
Eau Claire has home field advantage through the play-offs. The first game gets played there, the second game here, and then the tie-breaker (if needed) is back in Eau Claire again.
In a close-fought battle last night, an 8th inning clutch hit put the ‘Chucks 3rd run on the board, breaking a 2-2 tie. That was enough to hand Eau Claire a 3-2 defeat at home. So, tonight, the Woodchucks are at home, at Athletic Park. With last night’s win, they can seal the deal in front of their home town fans today and send Eau Claire home for the season while punching their ticket to the big show, the Northwoods League Championship series to be played Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
However, logistically the front office could have handled things a little better for this play-off game.
I am a season ticket holder. I have been for four years now or so. I fully understand that what I paid for those season tickets probably didn’t include the playoffs and I would need to purchase the tickets for the playoffs separate. However, the assumption that I did make (a WRONG assumption), is that season ticket holders would have first chance at their seats.
I emailed Woodchucks general manager Ryan yesterday asking how the season ticket thing works for the playoffs. I then spent from around 8:30 am to after 7 pm on the mower. I checked my phone for email messages – nothing. After not hearing anything, I called this morning at about 8:30 am before going to court, I got the answering machine, and left a message.
I was out of court about 9:15 and there was no response to my message yet, so I called again. I called only to learn that the reserved seating was opened up on a first-come, first-serve basis. I called only to learn that one of my three seats was already taken.
Excuse me?
I understand that maybe contacting the season ticket holders to see if they wanted their seats for the play-off game might have been a little bit of work…. I get that… but there was nothing posted on their website. And, I did send an email first thing Tuesday morning that was never answered. Had I known that I was going to lose the seats that I spent this entire season in, attending almost every game, I would have been down there to get them at 9 am on Tuesday.
I don’t have a problem with paying extra (beyond what I paid for the season tickets themselves) for the seats. I don’t have a problem with having to say very quickly whether or not I want them so they can be opened up to the general public. I do have a BIG problem with how this situation was being handled. And, I have talked to a few other season ticket holders (we see each other almost every day and you start to become friends with all those around you)… and my feelings on this are not isolated to me.
The playoffs did not sneak up on the Woodchuck’s management. Yes, we didn’t know we were in until we got that last win on Monday evening. However, we knew for a week or more that we had a good chance of making the playoffs and that would have been plenty of time to confirm with season ticket holders if they wanted to buy their seats for the play-offs, if they make it there.
I did manage to get seat D-7, where my butt has been for almost every game for the last few years. I also told the office staff that if we make it to the championship series, I want my seats for that.
Please, Woodchuck front office management, I have been a fan, I am a fan, I will continue to be a fan. Although many of those corporate sponsor seats are vacant most games, you know there are a core of 20-30 people in that gold section that are there every game, thick and thin, the wins the losses, the blistering heat and the rain delays. These are some of your biggest supporters and your strongest fans. We stick with you even when out of the play-off hunt, so please don’t forget about us when things are going well.
by John H Fischer on August 16th, 2010
There is no mystery how I have been spending most of my evenings. As a HUGE Wisconsin Woodchucks fan, a season ticket holder, and for the first time a team sponsor, I have only missed a couple of Woodchucks home games. However, the ‘Chucks need to realize that I am not in that good of shape and they are giving me a heart attack.
Earlier this season, the ‘Chucks had a one game lead for the first half playoff seat when they went into a multiple game losing skid.
Eau Claire ended up winning the seat for the first half of the season and they also have locked up the best record for the second half of the season. When the same team wins the first and second half, the team to join them in the playoffs is the team with the (next) best overall record.
By the first full weekend in August, it was clear this was going to be a four-team race to the finish. The ‘Chucks were just a game or so out of the play-off spot fighting for their lives with Green Bay, Madison and La Crosse all going for that same seat in the play-offs. Dropping a game to Wisconsin Rapids on August 5th started giving fans flashbacks from the first half of the season. However they did end up taking the next two games from the Rafters, allowing them to keep pace. Then came a Sunday trip to Eau Claire, where they managed to take one from the division-leading Express in their own house.
On Monday, August 9th, the ‘Chucks returned home to Athletic Park where they would be finishing the season with 7 of their last 8 games at home. The good news was the ‘Chucks controlled their own destiny. They were a game behind Green Bay, but would be playing Green Bay twice. La Crosse and Madison were also still in the mix, but the ‘Chucks would be finishing the season against the La Crosse Loggers. So, after winning three in a row, the game plan was simple. Win and you’re in.
And win they did. They swept Green Bay, taking the first game here in Wausau, and then traveling to Green Bay and beating them there. Then back home for the last six games of the season. Three games would be played against the Waterloo Bucks who were long ago eliminated from the post-season.
It was this series that the ‘Chucks decided to try to give some of their more heavy fans heart attacks (one TV station even called them the coronary kids). The first game against Waterloo on Wednesday, August 11th, was a pitcher’s battle. All four teams trying to get into the playoffs had been winning. The ‘Chucks were leading the way, but with no rooms for mis-steps. And the first mis-step was on the way trailing the Bucks 2-1 going into the bottom of the ninth. The “Come Back Kids” (which I prefer) managed to tie up the game and in the bottom of the 10th inning with two outs and a runner on, a well hit ball to second-base was mis-handled and went off the second baseman’s foot and into the outfield. Waterloo’s first error of this very tight game resulted in a ‘Chucks 3-2 victory in extra-inning, walk-off fashion.
Then came Thursday…. Record Book Thursday. I was there last year when Bobby Pritchett threw a no-hitter, but as for excitement, Thursday …. It still boggles the mind.
It was a game that started off with errors, mental errors, throwing errors, bad judgment, you name it, it happened. Waterloo had an 8-run second inning. The score after the top of the third was 10-0 Waterloo. Not only was the 6-game win streak coming to an end, a loss would take the ‘Chucks’ destiny out of their hands.
But, even with the number of fans easily cut in half, the players never lost hope. They started chipping away at that massive lead. After spotting the Bucks 10 runs, they came back to score two runs in the 4th and 5th. The Bucks got another run also, so 11-4 after 5 innings. It was 11-5 after 6. Although we were chipping away, we could have done more. We had left runners stranded on 2nd and 3rd in the 5th inning, and left the bases loaded in the 6th. Although we got the score to 11-6 after 7, in the top of the 8th, the ‘Chucks’ fourth error of the evening plated Waterloo’s 12th run. So, going into the bottom of the 8th inning, we had 2 at-bats to score 6 runs.
The motto seemed to be everything after 2. After a ground out to the pitcher and a fly out to right field, the bats got hot. After three straight hits, we brought the score up to 12-8. The runner on 1st advanced with a passed ball and the next batter was put on first with a hit pitch. The rally ended with a strike out. The umpire’s calls all night were debatable, but that last strike was right down the middle, called third strike.
Although Waterloo got a runner in scoring position, the ‘Chucks were able to hold them. But, they still needed 4 runs in the bottom of the ninth to stay alive. The lead off batter hits a double, and the single from the next batter plated him, 12-9. After a long fly ball caught on the center field warning track, a “texas leaguer” hit puts runners on 1 and 2 for the ‘Chucks. THEN IT HAPPENS! A shot over dead center, the longest part of the field (360), the highest part of the wall, a shot that cleared with a ton of room to spare and the sparse crowd still at the game erupted…. The 3-run shot makes it a new ballgame, 12-12.
Although the winning run did get on base, Waterloo managed to get out of the rest of the inning and for the second straight night, into the 10th we go. A ground out to first, a strike out looking, then a stand-up double to right-center…. BUT WAIT… a high-light reel diving catch and the Bucks are shut down 1-2-3. The Chucks get a hit between a strike out and a fly-out. After a stolen base, we have a runner on 2nd with 2 out. A walk off hit seals the deal, ‘Chuck win 13-12 keeping both their win streak and play-off hopes alive.
The final Waterloo game was again a come from behind win done in dramatic fashion. The ‘Chucks were on a tear, winning 8 games in a row going into their final three games of the season. Although the play-offs don’t technically start until Tuesday, they actually started Saturday. As coincidence would have it, all 4 times going for the title were playing each other. The Chucks were playing La Crosse here in Wausau, and Madison would be hosting Green Bay. The ‘Chucks had gotten a little wiggle-room, but not much. They had to take 2 of 3 to be in.
Saturday, the Chucks showed the play-off caliber team they are. After spotting the Loggers two runs in the top of the 1st, they came back to dominate the rest of the game with a 13-3 victory. This eliminated the Loggers from the play-offs. Madison also beat Green Bay taking them out. So, we are down to two. As of Sunday, the Chucks needed 1 win, OR needed Madison to lose 1 game.
Neither happened. The starting pitcher for La Crosse threw a complete game, 4-hitting the ‘Chucks on a 5-1 loss. Madison jumped out to an early 5-0 lead over Green Bay. The Bullfrogs fought back eventually tying the game at 5. However, a late run by Madison would seal the deal on the 6-5 Madison victory.
I should have known the play-off seat would not have been determined last night, this entire season has been about bringing the excitement and the drama down to the last pitch… and so it is again tonight. The Chucks play their final regular season game tonight, I game I will miss most of because of two other meetings. If the ‘Chucks win, they play Eau Claire in the first round of the play-offs. The ‘Chucks can still get in if they lose, but Green Bay would have to take the final game away from Madison. If Madison wins and the Chuck’s lose… then it will be the last game of the season… but what a season!!!
GO ‘CHUCKS!!!!!
by John H Fischer on August 12th, 2010
What a week!! Yes, I know I say that a lot… but this time I really mean it. It has been a busy week, but then they all are. But it has been educational and exciting as well.
First let’s talk about the ‘Chucks. They control their own destiny for their place in the play-offs next week. They won their 5th straight last night in walk-off fashion in the bottom of the 10th inning, 3-2. La Crosse beat Madison. This gives the Woodchucks a one game lead over Madison, La Crosse and Green Bay in the 4-way battle for that play-off spot. The ‘Chucks have 5 games left, all at home. Two more against the Waterloo Bucks tonight and tomorrow and the season will be decided with a 3-game series against La Crosse on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
I did start off the ‘Chucks season talking about some of the changes. I admitted in that post that the new logo and the new uniforms would probably grow on me. The uniforms have. I also complained about Woody’s off-season exercise regime. However, Woody has been more active and last night, between innings late in the game, he was on the field doing his famous worm dance move for the first time this season.
The next thing that really made this week one for the books was the realization that my opinion counts. That whether people agree with me or disagree with me, there are those of you out there that really want to know what I think about various issues. I am flattered… I really and truly am.
This weekend I received a telephone call from a TV producer in Milwaukee who is working with some of the larger media markets to put together focus groups for the governor’s race as well as the US Senate race, and I was invited to participate with the Wausau group. Then I received a mailing from the Village of Weston. They have sent surveys out to 36 people as a type of focus group to determine what the Village has done well, where there is room for improvement, and what should be some of their short term and long term priorities. You may have noticed that for the longest time I had stayed away from commenting on the City/County HR Department merger. But after having three different people ask me what are my thoughts, I did post article comments and even do a blog entry. My blog entry reporting on the Exhibitour wine decision didn’t make it to my blog because Citizen Wausau wanted it as a front page submission, and I am honored anytime I write something when it makes it to the front page. I have been getting some positive feedback on the “Readers React” things I have written for the Daily Herald that show up in Sundays’ papers. And, icing on the cake, was the invitation to participate in Wausau’s Housing Task Force, which had its second meeting since the hearings earlier this week.
Before heading to tonight’s Woodchucks game, I will be doing the Dr. Rent Radio Show on WNRB-LP, 93.3 FM, from 5 to 6 PM.
We have a few interesting questions. A tenant called me to ask if they were late in rent, how long do they have to move if the landlord tells them to move? The same tenant’s landlord wanted to enter the property to show it with a few hours notice, was this okay? Finally, a question that didn’t come to me, but was asked of someone else who is well versed in Landlord-Tenant law that I thought was worthy of addressing on the show; a tenant wanted to plant a flower garden in their yard and the landlord is saying no… what is the tenant’s recourse?
As for the main show topic, last week we explained how the Wausau Housing Task Force has been re-formed since the three public listening sessions. This new make up of the Task Force didn’t make it to Tuesday’s City Council agenda, so we are still not “official.” The task force now includes (pending approval), a home owner who testified at the public hearings, an attorney who also testified at one of the hearings who often represents tenants (and is a tenant herself), and a local outspoken landlord with his own blog and radio program. In its two first meetings, we looked at the transcripts of all the testimony and broke the issues that came up into some main categories of topics that this Task Force should be addressing.
New Registered Agent Rule: Right now, the new ordinance requires all rental properties to have a registered agent as a point-of-contact for the inspections department. The agent needs to be a corporate entity with a full-time staffed office within the City of Wausau, or an individual within Marathon County. The Registered Agent rule has merit in concept, but the geographic restrictions may be causing undo hardship. The Task Force will look at the possibility of expanding the geographic area where the Registered Agent can be located.
Police Department and Enforcement Issues: The Task Force will have separate meetings with the police department to discuss various comments made at the hearings about enforcement and communication to come up with possible solutions to address the criminal end of the blight issues.
Defining Landlord/Tenant Responsibilities: This was a recurring theme. When should the inspections department go after the property owner, and when would it be more appropriate for them to more aggressively pursue compliance from the occupant (tenant)? Not only does the Task Force need to come up with recommendations as to when which party is responsible, but what changes will be needed in the current processes to handle this.
Difficulty of Evictions: Although sometimes removing problem tenants can take a while because of how our landlord-tenant laws work, these are mostly state laws and not something our Task Force can really do much about. The biggest thing that the Task Force can do is be on the look out for legislation that would make eviction a better tool in blight control, and having the City’s legislative committee support those proposals.
Assessments for Repairs: Something that came up was that the City has a dis-incentive for making repairs to properties. Is replacing siding a repair that is done to maintain a property’s value? Or, is replacing siding an improvement that should flag the property for reassessment and increased property taxes? The Task Force will be meeting with the assessment department to learn what rules they must follow and whether anything can be done to address this issue.
Homeowner/Landlord/Tenant Relationship: There was testimony at the hearings that landlords should make an effort to introduce themselves and their tenants to neighbors. This is not something that Task Force can really address, but this is something that can be encouraged through a grass roots effort with local neighborhood groups and the local Apartment Association. Also, there has been talk that there is a perception that in at least one of the neighborhood groups, landlord/tenants are not really made to feel welcome and it is more of a home-owners club. That is not the intent of these groups, and the Task Force needs to determine if this perception can be backed up in reality; and if it is true, we need to help these groups embrace their diversity.
Blight Defined – This is a big issue… what is blight? For some people, housing that doesn’t meet code and crime infested areas are blight. In other neighborhoods, putting your trash out one day early or driving in an alley is blight.
Drugs – Drugs and drug enforcement is its own, stand-alone issue.
Landlord Licensing – Yes, my old nemesis, licensing is still on the table, but the Task Force will be re-visiting the issue. Whatever action the Task Force takes to address issues with bad landlords, bad tenants and bad homeowners, these actions need to be taken in such a way that they do not punish those landlords, tenants and homeowners who are not a part of the problem.
The biggest thing is that we all accept the fact that blight is not a problem that happened over night, it is years (if not decades) in the making. As such, the problem will not be fixed overnight. This will require time, and desire, and cooperation.
A brief discussion of the Task Force was the main topic last week. I will go into more detail on these areas of focus I just discussed here as the main topic for tonight’s show.
We also had some questions last week. The question of untenantability is one I won’t get into on my blog. I feel that Attorney Tristan Pettit from Milwaukee does a great job of covering this issue in depth on his blog on his July 28th entry, his blog can be found at http://petriestocking.com/blog/.
Next, when does the deposit need to be returned if the tenant moves out before the end of their lease? The deposit gets returned within 21 days of “surrender” (if the deposit is not returned in full, there needs to be an itemized statement indicating what was withheld from the deposit and why). If the tenant vacates before the end of the lease, they need to give the landlord notice IN WRITING that they have VACATED. Once the landlord receives this written notice that the tenant is out, that is when to start counting out the 21 days. If the tenant leaves early but there is no written notice, the 21 days starts at the end of the lease. (If the tenant’s right to be in the property had ended, because of being given a 5-Day or 14-Day notice, then the 21 days start when the landlord knew they were out.)
A new landlord knew they needed an application and a lease, but are there any other forms that are needed? If the property was built before 1978, there also needs to be a lead based paint disclosure and EPA Pamphlet. If there are specific rules the landlord wants the tenant to follow, these should also be established in writing. If those rules impact the landlord’s access to the property, what can be taken out of a deposit, or create lien holder rights, then those need to be part of a form labeled “Non-Standard Rental Provisions.” Although a move-in check list is not required to be given to the tenant as the tenant can create their own by writing down things they find in the unit, it is a good idea to make the extra effort to supply your tenant with one.
Finally, what type of references should a landlord check? There are a number of things that you can do. Credit reports probably provide the most information. It is also a good idea to verify their income. You cannot discriminate on legal source of income, however amount of income and stability of income are fair game (in most of the state anyway). Checking the criminal history on CCAP is also not a bad idea. However, make sure you know what you are looking at. Pending charges that have not been concluded cannot be taken into consideration. Also, charges that have been dismissed also cannot be considered. For me personally, the housing reference is the single most important thing you can verify. However, no matter which of these items you decide to check, make sure that you follow the same procedure for all applicants and hold all applicants to the same standards.
I apologize for the length of this blog entry, but some time it is just surprising what we can all fit into a 1 hour radio program. If you don’t believe me, tune in at 5 PM. Until then, HAPPY RENTING!!! (and…. GO ‘CHUCKS!!!)
by John H Fischer on August 10th, 2010
I watch the proposed merger of the human resources departments between the City of Wausau and Marathon County with great interest. I am a big fan of consolidation of services to increase efficiencies. Not a big fan, a HUGE fan.
It bothers me when I see the City of Wausau, the City of Schofield, the Village of Weston, the Village of Rothschild, the Village of Kronenwetter, Marathon County, and many townships (Rib Mountain being the most prominent) duplicate so many things. Some consolidations have happened and have a pretty good history. The most high profile would have to be the Everest Metro Police department, a common police force shared between the Village of Weston, the City of Schofield, and the Town of Weston. The blueprint for this merged department has actually been used as the model for other merged police departments within the state.
Another merged department, that appears to be working, at least from where I am sitting, is already a merger between Marathon County and the City of Wausau. I am talking about the parks department. Were you aware that there is no City of Wausau parks department? The parks department is actually a joint department with the City and County. Parks department employees are actually county employees and the county bills the City for its share of those services.
I will be the first to admit that I don’t fully understand the make-up, staffing, or duties of the HR department of either the City or the County. (There, I admitted it, Dr. Rent doesn’t know something.) However, I do understand that in the business world, HR departments are considered overhead, and when it comes to merging services, the largest savings and increasing of efficiencies are to be made in overhead areas.
So. We have established that I am a strong proponent of merged services, and we have established that from a conceptual standpoint, that I believe that there will be efficiencies in having the City and County merge HR departments.
Well… we are heading that direction at 100 miles per hour, and Mayor Tipple of Wausau has a well aimed pipe wrench aimed at the gearbox. His concerns, as reported in the Wausau Daily Herald, focus around the two employees currently in Wausau’s HR department. Although they would now fall under county control under the merger plan, he wishes for them to remain on the City’s payroll and be city employees.
It would be easy to see how this can be perceived as a turf-war kind of thing. And, maybe that is part of the issue. After all, if this thing falls flat on its face, it would be nice to know you still have your original HR staff that you can fall back on. However, I am not the kind of person to use just one source of information when making a decision on something (especially if I am going to end up writing about it).
The more research I do, and the more people I talk to… one thing seems to stick out. As much work has been done on this merger of HR departments; as long as this thing has been in the works; as many meetings have been had… the specific details of the plans are still pretty fuzzy.
The Mayor’s issues are not just these two employees. There are a number of issues in his proposed amendment (7 if I remember right). These are not big issues… they are just minor detail-type issues. They are “Dotting I” type of issues. They are “Crossing T” type of issues.
If you are going to do something, do it right. If it means a delay until next fiscal year, then fine. It is a delay. Isn’t it better work out all of the details and get it done right the first time, even if it means taking a little bit longer? Or, is agreeing to the concept and working out the details “on the fly” how we prefer our government to work? I have enough experience on all levels of government (federal, state and local) that I know better to trust them with a concept and not worry about the specifics.
If the HR department merger has been researched and has been proven that there are both benefits to the City and the County, I say proceed. However, I also say proceed with a plan. Proceed with a plan that covers the specifics. Is that really too much to ask?
by John H Fischer on August 5th, 2010
It’s Thursday again, time to make sure the trash is out before the garbage truck goes by. But more important to the readers of this blog, it is the day that the Dr. Rent Radio Show hits the airwaves on WNRB-LP, 93.3 FM, from 5 to 6 PM.
There are a couple of items that I wanted to talk about on last week’s show, but ran out of time. So, we will cover them this week. They include talking about tenant’s rights when the rental property is “untenantable” as well as discussing the new and improved Wausau Housing Task Force.
Added to those left over topics from last show, I had a few questions come up in the last week. Most know that the deposit needs to be returned to the tenant within 21 days. But, when do those 21 days actually start, especially if the tenant vacated before the end of the lease?
I have been talking with someone who is taking their first steps into being a landlord and will be renting out their first property. An application and a lease seemed like obvious things that they needed, however what other forms are good to have? Also, once they start getting applications, other than checking the applicant out on CCAP, what other underwriting should be done?
One other new question will piggy-back on the untenantability issue, what can a tenant do when they find out the utilities (that are included in the rent) are going to be turned off because the landlord didn’t pay them?
In case you missed last week’s show, it was a show devoted to questions. A question came up about someone who bought an old house that was a number of rentals. He converted the house back to a single-family home. He then bought the old and run-down apartment building next door. He was going to tear it down to give him a bigger yard. The City (this did not happen in central Wisconsin, though it was in Wisconsin) said no. Can a city say that a property cannot be torn down? There are times when that answer is yes. When they said they bought an old house and it was next to an old apartment building, I had to ask how old. Were they old enough to be on a federal, state or even local historic registry? The person asking me the question didn’t know, but did know that the properties were located within what is known as a locally established “Historic District.” DING DING DING…. That could be the answer. The City has a great deal of control over what can happen to old properties located within a historic district.
The next question had to do with a security deposit. The tenant left, but did not leave a forwarding address. The landlord, when returning the deposit, sent it to the last known address of the tenant (their apartment). There was no forwarding address on file with the post office either so the letter came back to the landlord. My advice has always been keep this letter, unopened, in the tenant file so if the tenant comes back years later, you can prove you met the 21 day guideline. Have them open the letter, and assuming the check is no longer good because how much time has passed, void that old check and cut a new one right there on the spot. The question came up about whether or not the landlord must (or should) send the money to the Wisconsin Dept. of Administration’s unclaimed property office instead of holding on to it. My personal opinion to must (and should), is NO. It is not technically unclaimed. It was properly mailed and returned. There is nothing in any statute or rule that I could find that mandates this money be held by the state (whereas money from the sale of property left behind DOES get forwarded to the state). Once the landlord returns the deposit in accordance with the laws, their obligations are done. No additional obligations are created if the letter comes back, at least none that I am aware of. Returning the money to the Unclaimed Property Department could create issues if the tenant comes back to you for the deposit check years later. You, the landlord, has the obligation to give them the deposit and could be liable for double damages if you don’t. Do you really want to trust that to the state?
Another question came up about when having multiple, unrelated tenants on a lease, should you put all tenants on the same lease, or do separate leases with each tenant. There are pro’s and con’s to doing it both ways. Often, in student housing situations, it is common to have each tenant have their own lease. That way, if a tenant finishes school earlier than the rest, the other tenants are not affected. This tenant can move out and the landlord can find a new tenant. If they were all on the same lease, it would be much more complicated. Also, when tenants move, you can send their deposit to them and not have to worry about how to split the deposit between the parties.
My preference, and how most non-student housing is done, is to have all of the parties on the same lease, making them all jointly and severally liable. One problem with individual leases is if there is common area damage, determining who to bill for that damage. If all parties are on the same lease, they are all responsible. The same is true for collecting rent. If there are separate leases, if one tenant doesn’t pay their rent, you have to try to collect that from that tenant. However, if they are all on the lease together and one person doesn’t pay their “share” of the rent, the landlord can hold all parties on the lease responsible.
If you are a tenant, you would much rather have a separate lease so that you are responsible for your own actions only and nothing a co-tenant does can affect you. However, if you are a landlord, you want all tenants to be on one lease because that way you don’t have to worry about who did want or didn’t pay what, everyone is on the hook.
A question came from a landlord who took one of my classes who had a 2-year lease with a tenant. From my class they learned that if you don’t have some type of exception written into the lease, you can’t use the 5-Day or 14-Day notices that most landlords (and tenants) are familiar with. Instead, there is a 30-Day notice when there is a breach of lease. The question is whether there is always a right to cure? Yes, there is. They wanted to know if they gave them a 30-Day notice with right to cure, and they cured; and then a few months later breached the agreement again, could the new 30-Day notice not have the right to cure? No. If the lease is longer than a year, there is no language in the lease indicating other notices can be used, then most standard breaches have to be given a 30-Day notice and MUST have a right to cure. This is why I recommend landlords avoid doing residential leases for longer than a year.
Finally, the last question came from a landlord that read in a magazine about giving a 3-Day notice for a tenant not paying their rent, and wanted to know what that was all about. I had to ask them where they read that article. I receive no less than 7 different magazines that have to do with renting properties, and most of them are national in their focus. However, landlord-tenant laws are state-specific. We can do some things here in Wisconsin that they can’t do in other states. Conversely, there are some things that people can do in other states that are not legal here in Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not allow for a 3-Day notice, the shortest a notice can be is 5-Days. So, if you read something about a 3-Day notice, just assume they are talking about what we call a 5-Day.
As you can see, if you miss one show, you miss a lot. Again, I will be on the air at 5 PM tonight on 93.3 FM in the Wausau area on WNRB-LP. Until then, HAPPY RENTING!
