By Atty Heiner Giese

I had an interesting case before Judge Davis in Milwaukee County.

The case had been settled with a stip in May 2022 providing for dismissal based on tenant paying $100 per month extra to catch up on $900 arrears. We consented to the sealing requested by Legal Aid attorney.

Tenant paid for a while, then fell behind in November and December, we got a writ in early January based on noncompliance, tenant moved out before writ was executed. In March we got a $1000 judgment for back rent (negotiated with Legal Aid though $1300 was due).

Then we moved to unseal her name. She also has several prior evictions with unsatisfied judgments.

The Legal Aid attorney argued against it, citing "inherent power of the court" and that the tenant's name was still searchable on the judgment docket.

Judge Davis went through her usual analysis about when a case can be sealed (public open records interest vs. private interest of tenant to find new housing, etc.), ultimately ruling in our favor to unseal the tenant's name. But at one point it sounded like she was going leave it sealed, noting that plaintiff had not objected, had in fact consented, when the first cause of action was dismissed.

The lesson is this: If you agree to sealing before the case is completely settled, if there is a pay-and-stay stip or if there is a date for future hearing on 2nd & 3rds you should specify that your consent or "no objection" to sealing is conditioned on the tenant living up to their end of any stipulated settlement. That will serve as an additional inducement for the tenant to live up to the stip so they don't lose the benefit of having the case sealed.