Cottonwood Creek Apartments RMD Management Group LLC Slumlords Menasha, Wisconsin

These accusations are false and have been refuted and addressed with the Bureau of Consumer Protection. The accuser has since agreed to not slander the name of RMD Management Group, LLC (RMD), now and in the future and has paid a settlement to RMD.

We are only responding to these accusations now, as we were just made aware that this posting existed.

Please read the responses filed with the Bureau of Consumer Protection below which addresses Mrs. Gordon's complaints:

Dear Bureau of Consumer Protection,

RMD Management Group, LLC (RMD) is responding to your letter dated September 18, 2012 in reference to File 551552 and relating to the property at 1332 Trader Road #33, Menasha, WI 54952.

First and foremost, RMD is denying any and all claims made by Mrs. Erin Gordon (tenant) and stated in your letter. 

Prior to July 13, 2012 RMD had no issues or concerns with the tenant and had no written correspondence with the tenant. 

This matter began back on July 13, 2012 with the tenant notifying RMD that they were intending to vacate the premises on August 31, 2012, which was two months prior to their 1-year lease term was set to expire on October 31, 2012. Per their signed notice to vacate (See Attachment A), they agreed to be “responsible for paying rent through the end of the term agreed to in the Lease/Rental Agreement or until another tenant is approved by the management and has taken occupancy, whichever happens first…” The tenant stated on this notice that they had “Found a house to rent; we need more room for a family of 4 with two dogs.” There was no other mention of any violations or poor living conditions at this time. 

In response to the tenant’s notice to vacate, RMD’s Complex Manager, Kelly verbally told the tenant that their lease did not expire until October 31, 2012 and RMD would not mutually surrender the lease terms. 

In response to RMD’s denial of the surrendering of the lease, the tenant responded with a new letter dated July 16, 2012 and postmarked July 17, 2012 (See Attachment B) and a new “reason” for wanting to vacate. Only 3 days after the tenant’s initial notice stating the reason for termination of the lease early was in fact that they had “Found a house to rent; we need more room for a family of 4 with two dogs.”; the tenant now stated in the letter postmarked July 17, 2012 the reason for wanting to vacate was “due to the ongoing dissatisfaction with the quality of life provided to us by Cottonwood Creek Apartments. While we have always been pleased with the cooperation and understanding of you and the apartment management to our situation…” As you can determine from the letter postmarked July 17, 2012, the tenant had a positive experience with RMD only altered their tone after RMD denied the request to terminate the lease early. 

In the course of business, RMD has seen this pattern before. A tenant makes a request to vacate early, they are denied, and then pretty much immediately they start making up accusations of all the things that RMD did to break the lease. This specific apartment complex was 96% occupied (July) and at the time the tenant vacated the premise the apartment complex was also 96% occupied (August). This is a very good occupancy ratio in terms of rental housing and further illustrates that RMD runs the apartment complex with integrity and professionalism. 

Now that you have the background, here are RMD’s responses to the tenant’s complaint she made signed and dated on September 4, 2012. 

First RMD would like to point out the tenant made the complaint on September 4, 2012 which is only four days after the tenant vacated. According to the signed lease (lines 45 – 46) (See Attachment C)  and state law, RMD has 21 days from the last date of occupancy by the tenant, which in this case was August 31, 2012, to return the tenant’s security deposit. The tenant’s complaints for violation of misuse of the security deposit (ATCP 134.06(3)(b) and ATCP 134.06(4)(b)) were made 17 days prior to the security deposit even being due back to the tenant and 14 days prior to RMD actually sending out the security deposit documentation and withholdings on September 18, 2012. At the time the complaint was made there was not an infraction of the lease and by no means would allow the tenant to legally be removed from the obligations of the lease. 

RMD did charge the tenant for damages related to three items in the kitchen (Cleaning stovetop; oven; and ceiling fan) as well as charges for carpet replacement and past due rent (September) and late fees (September). The stovetop, oven, and ceiling fan resulted in charges of $75.00 and are broken out on the Security Deposit Settlement Statement (See Attachment D). The carpet had excessive stains and a heavy animal urine scent. RMD’s professional carpet cleaning service came to inspect as they do to all our vacated units and they wrote to RMD, “Unable to save carpet’s due to extreme pet urine and mold caused by it!!!” (See Attachment E) Also in a separate letter from the City of Menasha Building Inspector it states, “the carpets needed to be cleaned to remove the smell left by the previous tenants.” (See Attachment G) Furthermore in a letter from the City of Menasha Health Inspector it states, “inspection of unit #33 found strong pet urine odor upon entering the unit, and noted stains on the living room carpet.” He went on to state the “…Health concern is the pet urine related to carpet.” (See Attachment H) 

Again, these were all charges detailed out and sent to the tenant within the 21 days window allotted by the state and after the tenant’s claim was falsely made on September 4, 2012. 

In regards to the alleged violation of ATCP 134.07(1), prior to the letter postmarked July 17, 2012, RMD did not receive any written requests for repairs or maintenance from the tenant, nor were any repairs promised in writing to the tenant by RMD. On August 31, 2012, the date the lease was breached by the tenant, the tenant sent out a letter (See Attachment F) to RMD and a copy to City of Menasha Building Inspector. The Menasha building inspector came out on September 7, 2012 to inspect the property and the complaints of the tenant and noted no material violations, but did reference in writing that “the carpets needed to be cleaned to remove the smell left by the previous tenants.” (G) 

Furthermore with regards to the alleged violation of ATCP 134.07(1), prior to the letter postmarked July 17, 2012, RMD did not receive any written requests for issues with mold, dog feces, and other health issues from the tenant. In the letter dated August 31, 2012 sent letter (F) to RMD and a copy to City of Menasha Department of Health, Safety and Welfare. The Menasha Health inspector came out on September 6, 2012 to inspect the property and the complaints of the tenant and noted in the public Environmental Complaint Record (H) that “no current issues warrant orders issued to property owner related to abatement of a health hazard.” The inspector did however document that during his “inspection of unit #33 found strong pet urine odor upon entering the unit, and noted stains on the living room carpet.” He went on to state the “…Health concern is the pet urine related to carpet.” 

In regards to the alleged violation of ATCP 134.08(2), RMD honestly does not know where this stated in the lease. If this is in question to whether or not we put forth a “reasonable effort” to fill the tenants unit, then RMD would like to offer these thoughts. RMD’s sole advertising outlet is Craigslist and this has been our only outlet for advertising the apartment complex since March 2011. We post the opening once or twice per month depending on what is available. In the listing of postings (See Attachment I) it shows RMD posted the availability at the apartment complex 4 times during the months of July and August 2012. During the 17 month period of only advertising on Craigslist, RMD has maintained a 95% occupancy rate which is extremely great for the industry and the market here in Menasha, WI. Also, if a tenant is vacating a unit it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the unit in a reasonable state for showings. As one can deduce from the written comments from the carpet cleaner, building inspector and health inspector, having a unit with carpet saturated with pet urine is not a state to show prospective tenants. 

Furthermore, with regards to the alleged violation of ATCP 134.08(2), per Wis. Stat. 704.29(2)(b) “If the landlord has other similar premises for rent and receives an offer from a prospective tenant not obtained by the defendant, it is reasonable for the landlord to rent the other premises for the landlord’s own account in preference to those vacated by the defaulting tenant.” As of September 1, 2012 the tenant’s unit was one of eight vacant units resulting from turnover, evictions, and/or passing of a tenant. Except for one of the evictions, there were six other units left in much better shape and were rent ready after the unit was vacated. As noted to the tenant several times, RMD will make a reasonable attempt to lease out the unit, but also made the tenant aware that if the unit was unable to be rented by October 31, 2012 that the tenant would be responsible for rent, utilities, and damages. 

Also mentioned in the complaint under Question #8 was the fact the tenant did not receive a Check-Out list. Per lines 49 – 52 of the signed lease agreement (C), it states it is the tenant’s responsibility to return the Check-In sheet within seven days of occupancy. The tenant did not turn in the Check-In sheet that was provided at lease signing and therefore the Security Deposit Settlement Statement (D) is used by RMD in its place to list the items needing to be cleaned or repaired. The tenant also made this claim on September 4, 2012, which was 17 days prior to the walkthrough needing to be completed. 

The tenant went on to deliver letters to every tenant with this false propaganda and slandered the name of RMD and our Complex Manager. This is a separate topic, but the tenant will have legal actions brought against them in court if this slander continues. 

As you can see from the documentation above, RMD feels the accusations by the tenant are false. RMD feels it is an attempt by the tenant to justify in their mind of why they feel they can vacate the lease early and to not be responsible for the final two months of the tenants lease. Again, we would like to point out that the tenant stated that her original reason for wanting to vacate early was that they had “Found a house to rent; we need more room for a family of 4 with two dogs.” It was not until their request was denied that they came up these accusations, of which several Menasha Employees have deemed to be false and felt their time had been wasted. 

We thank you for taking the time to read through this information and welcome any further questions you may have with regards to the complaint filed by the tenant. 

Kind regards,  

RMD Management Group, LLC 

------END LETTER-----

rmdmanagementgroup@gmail.com

I never did find a number for the "owners" of the property.  But here is an email address.  Hope this helps!  rmdmanagementgroup@gmail.com

i am a current resident at the cottenwood apartments in menasha wi and i hate it here. i can never get kelly to answer my phone calls and when i finally get a hold of him he has no idea what im talking about.  i have a one year old that cant even play in his own house without me being 2 steps behind him because im scared for his saftey. so my question is does anyone who has or is living here have the real owners number??