Covid Emergency Eviction Moratorium Punishes Landlord
Post 5428
Posted on August 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Koble Investments v. Elicia Marquardt v. James Miller, Intervenor-Appellant, Supreme Court, 420 Wis.2d 304, No. 2022AP182 (June 5, 2026.) (Reversing 412 Wis. 2d 1, 7 N.W.3d 915.) 2026 WI 19, 420 Wis.2d 308 Koble Investments served tenant Elicia Marquardt with an eviction notice for nonpayment of rent during Governor Tony Evers’s COVID-19 eviction moratorium.
Marquardt counterclaimed, alleging Koble violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act by attempting to collect a debt or enforce a right it knew or should have known did not exist. She also claimed the residential lease was void and unenforceable because it permitted termination for crime-related conduct but omitted statutory domestic abuse protections required by Wisconsin landlord-tenant law.
The circuit court dismissed Koble’s eviction claim and rejected Marquardt’s counterclaims. Her former attorney, James Miller, sought to intervene to recover statutory attorney fees. The court denied fee recovery but later allowed Miller to intervene solely to appeal the statutory-fee issues.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Wisconsin Consumer Act applied to the lease, that Koble violated the Act, and that Marquardt and Miller could recover damages, costs, and attorney fees.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
LAW
The principal statutes were the Wisconsin Consumer Act, which regulates debt-collection conduct arising from consumer credit transactions or other consumer transactions involving an agreement to defer payment which permits attorney-fee recovery when a customer prevails under the WCA; and Wis., which address prohibited residential lease provisions; which requires notice of domestic abuse protections; and which allows double damages and attorney fees for pecuniary loss caused by violations of certain consumer-protection orders.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wis. Stat. § 427.104 does not apply to a residential lease under which rent is payable monthly because such a lease is not an “agreement to defer payment.” Rent under a typical residential lease accrues month by month; the tenant does not owe all future rent at the moment the lease is signed. Because future rent obligations do not yet exist, they cannot be deferred.
The court rejected the court of appeals’ creative view that a one-year lease payable in monthly installments resembles an installment contract.
The Supreme Court also reasoned that Wisconsin landlord-tenant statutes and regulations confirm this interpretation. Wisconsin law treats rent as maturing when due, limits prepaid rent, restricts acceleration of rent, and requires landlords to mitigate damages after default. These rules are inconsistent with treating a residential lease as a deferred-payment arrangement.
On the damages issue, the court did not decide whether the lease was void for omitting domestic abuse protections. Instead, it assumed for purposes of analysis that the lease might be void and held that Marquardt still failed to prove a recoverable pecuniary loss.
She received occupancy in exchange for rent, and there was no evidence she actually paid the claimed late fees or filing fee. Because she did not show a causal connection between the alleged statutory violation and any financial loss, neither she nor Miller could recover damages, costs, or attorney fees.
CONCLUSION
Because Koble served Marquardt with an eviction notice during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium, the court concluded Koble violated the Wisconsin statutes. The court also declared the lease void and unenforceable under Wisconsin statutes because Koble omitted the notice of domestic abuse protections. Accordingly, the court held that Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5) entitled Marquardt to recover double the damages caused by Koble’s violation of § 704.44(10) and § ATPC 134.08(10), and Attorney Miller could recover reasonable attorney fees and costs under § 100.20(5) and Wis. Stat. § 425.308(1). Id., ¶¶ 32, 50.
In Wisconsin, a landlord is entitled to recover rent as it matures, not before. Logically, an obligation that does not yet exist cannot be deferred.
The Supreme Court recognized that a tenant’s obligation to pay rent under a typical residential lease accrues on a monthly basis. Because a tenant is not obligated to pay — upfront — all rent that will become due during the entire lease term, the obligation to pay rent each month is best understood as “a contemporaneous exchange of consideration” — one month of rent for one more month of occupancy.
A residential lease is not an installment contract. The lease obligated Marquardt to pay rent only on a monthly basis, in exchange for which Marquardt received the exclusive right to occupy the property during the month for which she paid.
No court has applied the WCA to residential leases in the fifty-four years after its enactment despite residential leases being frequently litigated.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the court of appeals was reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
This interesting case is not an insurance case as is my usual but deserves to learn that signing a lease does not require payment of all rent that will become due during the entire lease term, the obligation to pay rent each month is best understood as “a contemporaneous exchange of consideration” — one month of rent for one more month of occupancy. Laws created by the Covid Pandemic did not change contract law.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk. ims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
