NEWS
Committee discusses security deposit policy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryl Schnell:
- Crowley to ALRC: drop drink specials (October 20, 2005)
- Mayor veto on Overture possible (October 20, 2005)
- Building commission rejects 9-story proposal (October 20, 2005)
- In-Depth: Changing the face of Badger fans (September 4, 2006)
- 'Sconnie Nation' a big hit at UW (September 7, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Committee keeps security deposit policy intact (November 3, 2005)
- Security Deposit Interest (February 20, 2003)
- Landlords defend policies (September 8, 2005)
- Landlord loopholes continue to shrink (September 19, 2002)
- Committee passes proposal for locks (November 19, 2004)
by Darryl Schnell
Friday, September 16, 2005
The City of Madison Landlord and Tenant Issues Subcommittee, a branch of the Housing Committee, discussed security deposits and landlord registration at a meeting Thursday.
David Sparer, a member of the subcommittee, suggested a change to city ordinance to make it read the same as the Wisconsin statute regarding applicable damages on a security deposit.
Currently under city ordinance, if a tenant wins in small-claims court, he or she could possibly receive damages within a range of the amount of the security deposit to three times the amount. Under state statute, a tenant victorious in court would be granted double the amount of his or her security deposit. Sparer said under city ordinance, a tenant could receive more, but it is unlikely.
"Most judges, in my experience, just give double the amount of the security deposit anyway," Sparer said. "Tenants almost never receive triple."
Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2, explained a situation where a tenant may receive triple the amount of the deposit.
"A judge usually enforces triple the amount when the landlord is a repeat offender," Konkel said. "The judge tries to get through to them by taking it out on them financially."
Sparer said despite the possibility for triple damages, amending the ordinance to read the same as the statute would prove most advantageous for everyone involved.
"As written, the ordinance is not quite as clear as the statute," Sparer said. "The statute provides a specific amount, so the tenants and landlords would all know exactly what's riding on the judge's decision."
Changing the wording of the ordinance to match the statute would also make it possible to cite similar cases outside the City of Madison and use them as precedent. In the past, lawyers could not use similar cases from outside the city because of the difference in the laws, according to Sparer.
Curtis Brink, a developer and a member of the subcommittee, said justice might be better served by leaving the judge with the authority to decide how much to reward.
"In this type of situation both sides should be doing their job," Brink said. "If one side has not done [its] job, then the judge should dish out punishment accordingly depending on how egregious the violation."
Brink admitted he was not sure what judges want as policy. The subcommittee will move the issue to the next Housing Committee meeting Oct. 19 if Scott McAndrew, an attorney who deals with most small-claims-court suits, agrees to speak.
Konkel also raised the issue of landlord registration, which, among other things, would make sure tenants know the correct person to sue in small-claims court.
Registration would make contacting any property owner a simple task. A database would also be advantageous to neighborhood associations, the Madison Police Department and the Madison Fire Department if they wanted to contact the owner of a property.
Subcommittee member Philip Ejercito said a tenant should know who owns his or her property in case a problem arises.
"I've personally had problems contacting the correct person in units that I've lived in," Ejercito said.
The subcommittee will revisit the landlord-registration issue in future meetings.
