Background
The Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM) sought to evict tenant Sharee Dunn for non-payment of rent totaling $16,466.59. HACM served notice in September 2023 alleging Dunn owed $9,708; Dunn had not made any rent payments since 2020. When HACM filed the eviction in January 2024, Dunn had already voluntarily vacated the property. Instead of contesting the debt, Dunn challenged the lease itself, arguing that an abandonment clause in the lease agreement violated Wisconsin Stat. § 704.44(2m) and Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.08, rendering the entire lease void and unenforceable. Dunn also counterclaimed for restitution of all rent paid, double damages, and attorney’s fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5).
The circuit court found that the abandonment clause indeed violated state law and declared the entire lease void and unenforceable. The court denied HACM’s claims for unpaid rent and also denied Dunn’s counterclaim in full, without explaining its reasoning on either outcome.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that while the circuit court correctly identified the abandonment clause as illegal, it erred by failing to apply the legal consequence of a voided lease. The court confirmed that abandonment clauses permitting landlords to enter premises, take possession, and dispose of tenant property “without process of law” violate Wis. Stat. § 704.44(2m)’s ban on eviction or exclusion except through judicial process. The statute voids such clauses regardless of whether they are actually enforced, and renders the entire lease unenforceable, following the court’s precedent in Baierl v. McTaggart.
However, the court held that when a residential lease is found void, it does not eliminate the tenant’s rent obligation. Instead, following the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in Koble Investments v. Marquardt (2026), the tenancy converts to a periodic tenancy under Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2). Under this framework, the tenant must pay rent on the periodic basis established by the original lease—here, monthly rent. This prevents the absurd result of a tenant occupying premises rent-free while the landlord receives no compensation. The court remanded for the circuit court to calculate the appropriate unpaid monthly rent owed under the resulting periodic tenancy.
Key Takeaways
- Abandonment clauses permitting self-help entry and possession without judicial process violate Wisconsin tenant-protection law, regardless of whether the landlord ever invokes them.
- Including a prohibited clause in a residential lease voids the entire lease agreement, not merely the offending provision.
- A voided lease does not extinguish the tenant’s obligation to pay rent; instead, the tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy governed by Wis. Stat. ch. 704, with rent owed on the periodic schedule originally established.
- Courts must calculate rent owed under periodic tenancy principles and place findings on the record, rather than simply denying all claims.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the intersection between tenant-protection law and rent collection in Wisconsin. While it provides strong protections against self-help eviction clauses—a significant win for tenants—it also establishes that landlords are not left without recourse. Housing authorities and private landlords cannot draft around Wisconsin Stat. § 704.44(2m) by including abandonment clauses; such clauses void the lease. However, they retain the ability to collect rent through the periodic tenancy framework. For tenants, the ruling means they cannot avoid rent by proving a lease contains an illegal clause, but it does provide leverage in rent disputes and protection from unauthorized entry.
The decision follows and applies recent guidance from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Koble Investments, establishing a consistent statewide approach to voided leases. Courts on remand must carefully calculate rent obligations under periodic tenancy principles rather than simply dismissing landlord claims, imposing a procedural discipline that protects both parties’ legitimate interests.