Ruling (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2026 WI 19, decided June 5, 2026): The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals. Key holdings:
Facts: Koble Investments (landlord) sent tenant Elicia Marquardt a notice terminating her residential lease for nonpayment of rent during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium (a 60-day ban on such notices ordered by Governor Tony Evers in March 2020). Marquardt filed a counterclaim, alleging that this violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), specifically Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j), which prohibits debt collectors from attempting to enforce a right they know or have reason to know does not exist. She also claimed the lease was void and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 704.44(10) and Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.08(10) because it included a provision allowing termination for a crime committed on the property but omitted the required notice of domestic abuse protections under § 704.14.Procedural History: Koble initiated an eviction action in Marathon County Circuit Court. It later moved to dismiss its own eviction claim (admitting the notice violated the moratorium). Litigation continued on Marquardt’s counterclaims. The circuit court ruled in favor of Koble, holding that the WCA did not apply to the residential lease and that the lease was not void/unenforceable (interpreting the lease provision as not triggering the notice requirement in this context). It also denied Marquardt’s attorney’s motions to intervene and recover statutory attorney fees.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals (in a published 2024 decision, 2024 WI App 26) reversed, holding for the first time that a typical residential lease qualifies as a “consumer transaction” involving an “agreement to defer payment” under the WCA. It found a WCA violation due to the eviction notice during the moratorium. It also ruled the lease void due to the missing domestic abuse notice and allowed recovery of double damages (as pecuniary loss under § 100.20(5)) plus attorney fees/costs for Marquardt and her attorney.
Key takeaways from Wisconsin Supreme Court's unanimous overruling of Court of Appeals:
1) A lease is not a debt, the Wisconsin Consumer Act does not apply to a residential lease, and a landlord is not a "debt collector." 2) A lease which contains an illegal provision (or omits required provisions such as the domestic abuse protection language required by statute) which renders the lease voidable does not entitle the tenant to return of all of their rent payments for the entirety of the lease duration. This was one of the most bizarre and problematic rulings at the Court of Appeals. Rather than considering the situation (tenant occupying premises without a lease due to the lease being void) as a month-to-month tenancy, the Court of Appeals ruled that the tenant had no lease and therefore was entitled to return of all rent payments made for however long they resided at the property!?! Thankfully, this error has been overturned.3) Without the WCA claims, the fee shifting that made this case potentially very lucrative for the tenant's counsel has been removed.
- The WCA (§ 427.104) does not apply to typical residential leases with monthly rent payments, as these do not constitute “an agreement to defer payment” (rent accrues monthly rather than being deferred from a lump-sum obligation).
- Even assuming the lease was void/unenforceable due to the missing notice, Marquardt failed to show any pecuniary loss caused by the violation, so neither she nor her attorney could recover damages, costs, or attorney fees under the relevant statutes (§ 100.20(5) or § 425.308(1)).
Facts: Koble Investments (landlord) sent tenant Elicia Marquardt a notice terminating her residential lease for nonpayment of rent during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium (a 60-day ban on such notices ordered by Governor Tony Evers in March 2020). Marquardt filed a counterclaim, alleging that this violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), specifically Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j), which prohibits debt collectors from attempting to enforce a right they know or have reason to know does not exist. She also claimed the lease was void and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 704.44(10) and Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.08(10) because it included a provision allowing termination for a crime committed on the property but omitted the required notice of domestic abuse protections under § 704.14.Procedural History: Koble initiated an eviction action in Marathon County Circuit Court. It later moved to dismiss its own eviction claim (admitting the notice violated the moratorium). Litigation continued on Marquardt’s counterclaims. The circuit court ruled in favor of Koble, holding that the WCA did not apply to the residential lease and that the lease was not void/unenforceable (interpreting the lease provision as not triggering the notice requirement in this context). It also denied Marquardt’s attorney’s motions to intervene and recover statutory attorney fees.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals (in a published 2024 decision, 2024 WI App 26) reversed, holding for the first time that a typical residential lease qualifies as a “consumer transaction” involving an “agreement to defer payment” under the WCA. It found a WCA violation due to the eviction notice during the moratorium. It also ruled the lease void due to the missing domestic abuse notice and allowed recovery of double damages (as pecuniary loss under § 100.20(5)) plus attorney fees/costs for Marquardt and her attorney.
Key takeaways from Wisconsin Supreme Court's unanimous overruling of Court of Appeals:
1) A lease is not a debt, the Wisconsin Consumer Act does not apply to a residential lease, and a landlord is not a "debt collector." 2) A lease which contains an illegal provision (or omits required provisions such as the domestic abuse protection language required by statute) which renders the lease voidable does not entitle the tenant to return of all of their rent payments for the entirety of the lease duration. This was one of the most bizarre and problematic rulings at the Court of Appeals. Rather than considering the situation (tenant occupying premises without a lease due to the lease being void) as a month-to-month tenancy, the Court of Appeals ruled that the tenant had no lease and therefore was entitled to return of all rent payments made for however long they resided at the property!?! Thankfully, this error has been overturned.3) Without the WCA claims, the fee shifting that made this case potentially very lucrative for the tenant's counsel has been removed.
For Supreme Court Decision, see Koble Investments v. Marquard.
