We are often asked “What does the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin do?” Over the past two years, with your support, we have helped make Wisconsin law, restoring clarity after the “mischief” caused by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and we continue our work by providing the information you need to stay compliant after the changes. Read all about it here!
The Rental Property Association of Wisconsin’s work and efforts are made possible by your dues!
Your continued support ensures that we can monitor critical legal developments, advocate for landlords statewide, and provide timely guidance when court decisions impact your business.
As many of you have heard, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in Koble v. Marquardt. This decision reshapes key aspects of landlord‑tenant law and will affect how rental property owners operate going forward. Below is a clear, comprehensive explanation of what changed, what remains the same, and what steps you may need to take to stay compliant and protected.
WHAT WISCONSIN RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS NEED TO KNOW AFTER THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECISION IN KOBLE V. MARQUARDT
“[The court of appeals] reached this conclusion not by consulting or interpreting the law, but solely based on Koble’s purported failure to respond to Attorney Miller’s argument on the pecuniary damages issue.” Koble v. Marquardt, 2026 WI 19 at P28.
On June 5, 2026, Wisconsin rental property owners breathed a collective sigh of relief after the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Koble v. Marquardt reintroduced stability to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, as the Supreme Court noted, had created “mischief” in Wisconsin landlord-tenant law, a term seldom used in such a way.
After the Court of Appeal decision, consumer attorneys used Koble as an opportunity to suemultiple rental property owners, often seeking class-action status, collectively exposing Wisconsin owners to hundreds of millions of dollars or more in damages, even though their tenants suffered no harm. For a court to conclude that a lease was void as alleged in many complaints often required multiple leaps of logic to find technical lease violations where none existed.
Had the Court of Appeals holding in Koble been limited to the Koble parties, or limited to the facts based on the failure of Koble’s attorney to respond to legal arguments, there might not have been the effort and expense to overturn it. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals issued the decision as a published, binding precedent decision impacting all rental property owners throughout the state, after having reached the decision “not by consulting or interpreting the law”. Koble at P28. The decision left rental property owners throughout the state without the opportunity to argue the law that Koble’s attorney failed to argue.
The language in all commonly used and widely accepted leases, including those from the Wisconsin Realtors Association, Wisconsin Legal Blank, and the National Apartment Association, as well as the lease sold through the Wisconsin Supreme Court, was challenged. Any lease purchased before late 2023 likely contained language that these later cases were built upon and, if Koble stood, could have caused the user’s financial ruin.
Fifty-four years of established landlord-tenant law was thrown into turmoil by the KobleCourt of Appeals decision. Turmoil and uncertainty were not only created by allowing the “grafting” of the Wisconsin Consumer Act onto landlord-tenant relationships, but in the Court of Appeals’ refusal to recognize Wisconsin statutory provisions that provided that a month-to-month tenancy exists when there is no valid lease, together with the creation of an expansion of damages to include all rents paid while ignoring the value of the housing the tenant received and had agreed to pay.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court clearly repudiated (a $100 lawyer word) the Court of Appeals’ disregard for clearly established law.
No business would survive being required to return double the income it earned over the past 2-3 years, plus the attorneys’ fees for both the owners and their tenants. Owners typically retain about 7% of the rents collected as compensation for their investment and labor. It would not have been possible for owners to recover from damages such as these. Legal fees alone cost owners tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
No serious investors would be willing to develop new housing in the hostile legal environment Koble created. The fallout from massive rental owner bankruptcies would have devastated communities and harmed renters.
What Wisconsin Rental Property Owners Need to Know About Leases After Koble v. Marquardt
The reversal in Koble v. Marquardt means that the grossly unfair, crushing civil damages authorized by the Court of Appeal’s decision are no longer permitted.
However, Wisconsin’s Consumer Protection laws, which have protected Wisconsin residents for more than five decades, remain fully in effect. If you use an improperly written lease and fail to correct it, you will be subject to both civil lawsuits by tenants and enforcement actions by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Department of Justice.
If your lease contains a provision prohibited by Section 704.44, Wis. Stats., it is void.
When a lease is void, a property owner may no longer enforce it against any tenant under that lease form. A void lease converts to a month-to-month tenancy, which residents can terminate with 28 days’ notice. You also lose the ability to enforce pet provisions, parking restrictions, guest restrictions, nonsmoking clauses, and other provisions that are not included in Chapter 704.
If the improper lease results in monetary losses for a tenant, the tenant may still sue the property owners for double damages, attorney fees and costs.
Depending on the facts of any individual case, these causes of action will likely be very costly; even if the court awards the tenant a couple of hundred dollars in damages, once it is doubled and attorney fees are added, it will sting.
A greater concern are the potential penalties from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Wisconsin Department of Justice, up to and including imprisonment. These enforcement agencies have had, for four and a half decades, and continue to have, enforcement authority over property owners in landlord-tenant disputes. If you make an honest mistake and quickly correct it once you are alerted, the agencies generally will work with you. If you fail to make corrections, they will not be kind.
Some of the recent DOJ settlements and court decisions against owners have resulted in massive fines of $53,000, $75,000, $500,000, and $1.4 million, and, perhaps worst of all, 60 days in jail.
No court will allow you to enforce a prohibited provision, and the downside risk is extreme.
“Whatcha in for?”
“I put an attorney fee provision in my lease to scare my tenants into paying,” as all the other prisoners slowly move to the other side of the cellblock.
Do not use leases or procedures unless they are compliant with Wisconsin law.