So, a UW law student wrote up a 7 page paper about a problem with our tenant/landlord law and what they saw when they helped clients in court. The law school student was correct, there was a problem that the intent of the law was not very clearly written. So, I sponsored the change that they suggested, since it made alot of sense to make the law more clear.
The law in question was MGO 32.07
See where it says that the “check-in form shall be provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy” and then later is says that the “check-out form shall be provided to the tenant prior to the termination of the tenancy.”
Well, this has been interpreted differently by different court commissioners, judges and lawyers. There is consistent interpretation about what this means. The key problem is that some landlords give the “CHECK IN AND CHECK OUT” form at the beginning of the tenancy and then a year, or two or ten years later when one or all of the original tenants move out – they don’t get a check out form, because they recieved it at the beginning of the tenancy.
Clearly, knowing the history of the law and other provisions in the law, that is not the intent. Their check-in form should be given when they check-in and the check-out form should be given when they check-out. Talk about common sense!
If the history of the law and common sense aren’t enough, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how you would write the amount of interest (rent credit) due to the tenant on the check-out form if you give it to them when they move in. Clearly, the intent of this provision is that the check-out form is given at the end of the tenancy, not the beginning.
The great irony is . . . that the Apartment Association of Southcentral Wisconsin opposed this simple housekeeping clarification because it might “trip up landlords”. Um . . .that’s the current situation, because of the lack of clarity of the law, you can pretty much flip a coin and have as much predictability as you would going to court.
Another interesting point is that on Tuesday, only one registrant opposed this provision, the lobbyist for the Apartment Association (Nancy Jensen), not one landlord showed up. Even the Landlord Legislative Council (Eileen Bruskewitz et al) didn’t show up after a slight modification by Alder Golden. However, we had several attorneys who are experts in tenant/landlord law and law school students who did come and testify about why this change is needed.
The final absurdity of this situation is that, had I been at the council meeting on September 5th, this would have passed at that time (I was gone due to a family emergency), but because of a series of absences by various supporters – this confusing ordinance remains on our books and tenants and landlords are left to guess how this law might be interpreted by the courts.
