An email from Kirsten Fagerland Pezewski, attorney for the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc., Pezewski Law Offices, S.C.

 

Wisconsin has passed a law that affects Wisconsin housing providers and tenants.  RPA recommendations are set forth at the end of this email.

 

2025 Wisconsin Act 90//Senate Bill 413 makes changes to Wisconsin Statute 704.16 “Termination of tenancy for imminent threat of serious physical harm; changing locks”. 

 

Formerly, Section 704.16(1)&(2) provided, among other things, a process for tenants to terminate their tenancies if they are under imminent threat of serious physical harm by remaining in the premises and if the tenant properly provides (and generally is the “victim in”)  any of the following certified documentation: domestic abuse injunctions, child abuse injunctions, harassment injunctions, criminal offense conditions of release under Chapter 969, or sexual assault, stalking or domestic abuse criminal complaints.

 

In a nutshell, the Act modifies the process for a tenant to terminate his or her tenancy because the tenant, or a child of the tenant, faces an imminent threat of serious physical harm by remaining in the premises that is related to attempted, threatened, or actual sexual assault.  No changes were made to Section 704.14 in this Act, and the required domestic abuse notice language for leases has not been changed by this Act.

 

Helpful links:

Section 704.21, Wis. Stats: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/704/21

Section 704.16, Wis. Stats as of 3-12-26 without changes: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/704/16

2025 Wisconsin Act 90:  https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/acts/90

 

Prior to this change, to terminate his or her tenancy, the tenant would need to (1) somehow “establish” that the tenant, or a child of the tenant, faces an imminent threat of serious physical harm from another person if the tenant remains on the premises, and (2) provide the landlord (a) notice as set forth under 704.21 and (b) a certified copy of a type listed (injunctions, conditions of release, or criminal complaints).

 

With this change, the first element is no longer applicable as to sexual assault circumstances.  Now, to terminate the tenancy in relation to sexual assault, the tenant must only provide (a) the notice in the manner set forth in 704.21 and (b) a certified copy of an injunction order protecting the tenant, or child of the tenant, from another person based on the other person’s engaging in an act attempting, threatening or constituting sexual assault.

 

“Establish” is in quotes above as to facing an imminent threat of serious physical harm, because the statute otherwise requires tenants to “face” an imminent threat of serious physical harm, but the only action required by the tenant was and otherwise is to provide the landlord with notice as provided under Section 704.21, together with a certified copy of the documents therein listed. 

 

Recommendations:  any time a tenant provides you with a notice terminating tenancy for imminent threat of serious physical harm, review Section 704.16 to ensure you are following its provisions.  Make sure it is the current version.  If you simply wish to release the tenant or accept copies that are not certified, etc. to not hold the tenant to the strict requirements, you are able to do so.  If you wish to require the tenant to strictly follow the procedures set forth in Section 704.16, review the statute carefully so you are not wrongfully holding a tenant responsible for continuing liability under lease.  However you elect to proceed, remember that the tenant is not liable for any rent after the end of the month following the month in which the tenant provides the notice and documentation or removes from the premises, whichever is later.  As always, owners are required to mitigate their damages under Section 704.29(2).

 

Helpful hints:  it might help to think of receipt of notice/documentation as converting a lease to a statutory month-to-month tenancy, terminating on the last day of the following month.  You may want to consider NOT holding the tenant over a technical flaw in procedure because if the worst happens, you may be dealing with damages you won’t recover for, and a property that may be tainted if someone is brutally killed there.