Wisconsin Sexual Assault Victims Can End a Lease Without Proving an Ongoing Threat

Rather than replacing Wisconsin's existing imminent-threat-based termination provision, this amendment adds a new, separate subsection, 704.16(1m), specifically for sexual assault and stalking victims.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1m), as created by 2025 Wis. Act 90, 2025 S.B. 413]

That additive structure means a landlord now has 2 distinct pathways to evaluate, depending on which category a tenant's termination request falls under; a tenant citing domestic abuse or harassment still works through the original imminent-threat provision, while a tenant citing sexual assault or stalking can use this new, more direct pathway instead.

Under the general provision, a tenant has to show an imminent threat of serious physical harm from the offender to qualify for termination, a standard that can be difficult to satisfy when an assault has already occurred and the offender isn't necessarily making ongoing threats in a way that's easy to document.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1); Wis. Stat. 704.16(1m)]

That gap is exactly what this new subsection closes; a sexual assault survivor shouldn't need to separately prove the offender poses a continuing, provable danger of future physical harm just to leave a lease tied to the location where the assault occurred or where they no longer feel safe.

A tenant qualifies under this provision by providing a certified copy of a restraining order or a filed criminal complaint alleging sexual assault or stalking, documents that already exist within the court system rather than requiring a new, separate certification process created specifically for this statute.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1m)]

That structure means the qualifying proof is something a tenant who has already engaged with the legal system, by seeking a restraining order or reporting the assault, typically already has access to; a landlord receiving this documentation is relying on an existing court record rather than evaluating a new, statute-specific form of proof.

Once a tenant provides the required written notice and the certified restraining order or filed criminal complaint, the statute doesn't ask the landlord to independently evaluate whether the underlying assault or stalking actually occurred or whether a continuing threat exists.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1m)]

That limited role protects both parties; a landlord isn't put in the position of adjudicating a sexual assault allegation, and a tenant isn't required to convince the landlord of facts beyond what the certified court documentation already establishes.

This law was enacted March 6, 2026 and published March 7, 2026; under Wisconsin's general rule that a new act takes effect the day after publication absent a different specified date, that places the effective date at March 8, 2026.

[Cite: 2025 Wis. Act 90; Wis. Stat. 991.11, general effective-date rule]

A landlord trying to pin down the exact date this provision became enforceable should rely on that day-after-publication calculation rather than the enactment date itself, since Wisconsin law typically distinguishes between when a bill is signed and when it actually takes legal effect.

Since this subsection and the general imminent-threat provision are 2 distinct legal pathways with different documentation requirements, a landlord benefits from clearly labeling and filing a termination notice according to which specific provision the tenant is relying on.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1) and (1m)]

A landlord who files all protective-tenancy termination notices together, without distinguishing which statutory subsection applies, risks confusion later if a dispute arises over whether the correct documentation standard was actually satisfied for that specific tenant's situation.

The statute establishes the termination right and its documentation requirement, but secondary questions, exactly how unpaid rent or security deposit handling works in a mid-lease termination under this provision, are generally governed by the broader provisions of Section 704.16 rather than restated separately within this new subsection.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16]

A landlord processing a termination under this provision should review the surrounding sections of 704.16 for those practical mechanics, rather than assuming this specific subsection addresses every financial or procedural detail on its own.

Because this provision deals specifically with sexual assault and stalking, a tenant invoking it is disclosing a particularly sensitive personal circumstance, which calls for a different level of care in how staff receive and process the request compared to a routine lease-termination inquiry.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1m)]

A property manager should make sure front-line staff know this provision exists, know what documentation satisfies it, and know to route the request appropriately and discreetly, rather than treating it as an ordinary lease-break request subject to standard early-termination fees or procedures.

Since the general provision still requires proving an imminent threat while this new subsection doesn't, a landlord evaluating a termination request needs to first confirm which category the tenant's documentation actually falls under before deciding what additional proof, if any, to request.

[Cite: Wis. Stat. 704.16(1) and (1m)]

A landlord who mistakenly applies the general provision's imminent-threat standard to a tenant who actually qualifies under this new sexual-assault-specific subsection risks wrongly denying or delaying a termination the tenant is legally entitled to based on the documentation already provided.

This subsection's creation reflects a specific legislative judgment that sexual assault and stalking victims face housing-related obstacles distinct enough from the general protective-tenancy category to warrant their own, less burdensome pathway.

[Cite: 2025 Wis. Act 90, S.B. 413]

A property manager should understand this as a deliberate, narrow expansion rather than a broad loosening of lease-termination standards generally; the new subsection applies specifically to this defined category of victim, documented through a specific, existing legal record.

The practical starting point is updating internal lease-termination procedures to recognize this new subsection as a distinct pathway, separate from the general imminent-threat provision, with its own documentation standard.

Training staff to recognize a certified restraining order or filed criminal complaint for sexual assault or stalking as sufficient documentation under this provision, without requiring the tenant to additionally demonstrate an ongoing threat, keeps a property's response aligned with what this specific law actually requires.