Covid Emergency Eviction Moratorium Punishes Landlord
Post 5428
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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
