A recent decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has reignited a legal battle over an eviction case involving a tenant and her landlord. The appeal, filed by Connie Shaw against Madison Development Corporation, challenges a circuit court judgment that evicted Shaw from her apartment. On February 5, 2026, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, citing potential statutory violations related to tenant rights.
The dispute centers around Shaw’s eviction from an apartment owned by Madison Development Corporation. In October 2024, the landlord issued a “90 Day Notice to Vacate” to Shaw, informing her that her lease would not be renewed upon its expiration on January 31, 2025. The notice cited three reasons for nonrenewal: threatening language in emails towards staff, baseless reports including an unwarranted restraining order against staff, and conduct affecting property insurance coverage. Shaw contested these claims in small claims court, arguing that the nonrenewal was retaliatory and violated Wisconsin Statute § 704.45(1), which protects tenants from retaliatory actions by landlords when they exercise their legal rights.
During the small claims trial, evidence was presented regarding Shaw’s interactions with the landlord’s staff and her subsequent legal actions. Shaw argued that her complaints about harassment by a maintenance worker were legitimate exercises of her tenancy rights. However, the circuit court focused solely on whether the landlord’s stated reasons for nonrenewal were reasonable and failed to consider Shaw’s retaliation defense under § 704.45(1). The appeals court found this oversight significant enough to warrant a reversal of the eviction judgment.
Shaw’s appeal highlighted several key points: she claimed that her reports and legal actions were made in good faith as part of exercising her rights as a tenant. She argued that these actions should be protected under § 704.45(1)(c), which safeguards tenants from retaliatory lease nonrenewals when they exercise legal rights related to their tenancy. The appeals court agreed that some of Shaw’s conduct might be protected under this statute but noted that further fact-finding was necessary to determine if retaliation was indeed a factor in the landlord’s decision not to renew her lease.
The appeals court directed the lower court to re-evaluate whether any of Shaw’s actions were protected under § 704.45(1) and if so, whether those actions were substantial factors in the landlord’s decision not to renew her lease—a concept known as “but-for” causation in legal terms. If it is determined that retaliation played a role in the nonrenewal decision, Shaw may be entitled to relief for wrongful eviction.
Representing Connie Shaw is attorney Samuel A. Christensen while Madison Development Corporation is represented by unspecified counsel at this stage of proceedings. The case is presided over by Judge Rhonda L. Lanford at Dane County Circuit Court with Appeal No. 2025AP461.
Source: 2025AP461_Madison_Development_Corporation_v_Shaw_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf