WARNING: This is a long blog post, but the subject matter of Eviction Records Retention, as well as Evictions in general, deserves nothing less than a comprehensive review.  We owe this to ourselves, as rental property owners and managers, and we owe this to our Residents...our Customers.

In discussing the Courts final ruling, it is important to put some context in the reasoning behind the position that the AANW, the FVAA and others who are part of our coalition of rental property housing providers, took on this issue.

The Context:

• More than 95% of our resident customers pay their rent on time, are good neighbors, maintain the property as expected, and do not violate the terms of their lease.  Therefore, they are not involved in eviction actions in the first place.
• Less than 5% of our residents, for a variety of reasons, most of which are outlined above, will find themselves in an eviction situation.  Often, the predominant reason is due to non-payment of rent.
• These two points above, is what some of us have come to call the “955 Principle”, for lack of any other way to articulate this.
• This is not to suggest at all that those who are involved in an eviction action do not need some form of assistance.  Indeed, they do, however, there are far better ways to get them this help, (including various eviction avoidance strategies and programs that need more development) that do not impact the majority of our residents (the 95%), than removing eviction records from the public’s view.
• As we have shown in our monthly meetings, removing these eviction records would negatively impact the 95% group as screening standards would increase, along with security deposits and rents, to offset additional business risk, making it harder to be accepted as an applicant.  Additionally, this same 95% group would now be competing for housing, “with” those who have evictions in their past rental history (the 5%) because no one can see them, as they would have been removed from public view.
• Additionally, as some owners/managers already have, and likely more would follow, to mitigate this increased risk in their businesses, they will migrate to a different niche in the rental housing market, where the lack of visibility of eviction records might present less risk to their business.
• Still others would just exit the rental housing market in its entirety, selling to new owners that would undoubtedly take on a higher cost of debt service, putting even more upward pressure on Rents.  
• Not an outcome any of us would like to see, but upward pressure on Rents and a reduction of Affordable Housing Stock would have indeed been an outcome of all of this.
• In a rental housing market that is already strained with demand exceeding supply, this is not at all fair to those residents who always pay their rent on time, are good neighbors, maintain the property as expected, and do not violate the terms of their lease.  In effect, the 95% become collateral damage and would suffer from the unintended consequences of, a well-intentioned proposal from Legal Action, but nevertheless flawed in its understanding of the impact to all the various stakeholders of this request.
• In 2018 the Wis Legislative branch put forth Wis Stat §758.20, that outlines among other things, how long eviction records should be retained out in the public domain.
• The Court already has a mechanism in place to review records access in CCAP through a steering committee that reviews these matters and considers the broader ramifications of changes in records retention to all the various stakeholders involved in proposed changes.
• Legal Action of Wisconsin’s (LAW) petition to the Court with 22-03, attempted to circumvent both the Legislative branches intent with this matter through the enactment of Wis Stat §758.20 in 2018, and the Court’s own committee established to review CCAP records retention.

Now to the Final Ruling of the Court:

• This has always been about how long eviction records would remain available in the public domain via the CCAP online access to court records.
• The Bottomline here is that the Court rejected the petition of Legal Action of Wisconsin (LAW) that suggested a one-year retention period and accepted the proposal of the AANW/FVAA, and our housing coalition partners we work with, first made in 2022, again in 2023, and finally once more in 2024.  2-Year Retention Period if no money judgement has been docketed, and a 10-Year Retention Period if a Writ of Restitution has been granted by the Court.
• During the Courts second open administrative conference, held on April 16, 2024, the Court ultimately came around to agreeing that they did not want to go against the Legislative branch’s establishment of law on this matter, through Wis Stat §758.20.  If you listen to this event, out on WisEye.org you will learn that the clarifying position statement that was submitted on behalf of the AANW and FVAA, dated April 10^th, 2024, certainly played a role in this discussion on April 16^th, and their final decision. 
• The Courts decision to effectively “stay in their lane” as the Judicial Branch of government, is to be applauded and respected.  Note that LAW was urging the Court to override this Statute, and in effect create their own law/rule.  The Court ultimately refused to comply with this request, as it should have. 
•  What did come out of this over 2 years of discussion, is that based on the comments from those who spoke before the Court, the application of Wis Stat §758.20 was not always being applied consistently across the court system, and that is not right to those who find themselves in an eviction action, so they will be taking the time necessary to make some changes to software, process definition and procedures to help make the application of the law and its own rules, consistent.  This is a good thing for all stakeholders involved.
• Thus the "effective date" of this ruling is July 1, 2025, but recall that Wis Stat §758.20 already requires nothing less than a 2-year retention period where no money judgement has been docketed, and 10 years when a Writ of Restitution has been issued.  Again, this is effectively exactly what the Court has ordered. 
• Justice Hagedorn's dissent (joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley) confirms what many of us suspected they were having trouble with all along…which was why the court became involved in this rules petition in the first place.  As stated earlier, the court has its own process for handling rules review through its CCAP oversight and steering committee, and LAW circumvented that by filing this petition with the Court, as well as then seemingly ignoring the role the Legislative branch should have/could have played in this as well.  Justice Hagedorn stopped short of suggesting that owners and managers would increase screening standards for their customers/residents and what that would do to our 95% base.  But he does find a way to suggest that better solutions to matters such as this can more thoroughly be developed within a process that engages all the various stakeholders upfront, where a collaborative solution can be created and bought into by all concerned parties.  We could not agree more, and in fact this is a point made several times to the Court, when we spoke before them, as well as the document submissions that we provided. 

In closing, many of you have heard on more than one occasion that at least a part of why we have seen failed housing policies and or poorly thought through legislative housing bill proposals, while all of these are we are sure well-intended, is because too many times we have attempted to fix the symptoms, and not the disease.  The AANW and the FVAA stand ready to engage in meaningful, collaborative, root cause analysis and discussion to tackle the multiple housing issues we are facing.  In fact, some housing related associations, municipalities and legislative officials have already reached out to us to do just that, and we welcome more to do the same.

Rick Van Der Leest

Apartment Association of Northeast Wisconsin | President

Fox Valley Apartment Association | Director of Government Affairs