704.19 is necessary to terminate such a periodic tenancy. (3) ASSIGNMENT. An assignment by the tenant of a leasehold interest which has an unexpired period of more than one year is not enforceable against the assignor unless the assignment is in writing reasonably identifying the lease and signed by the assignor; and any agreement to assume the obligations of the original lease which has an unexpired period of more than one year is not enforceable unless in writing signed by the assignee. (4) TERMINATION OF WRITTEN LEASE PRIOR TO NORMAL EXPIRATION DATE. An agreement to terminate a tenancy more than one year prior to the expiration date specified in a valid written lease is not enforceable unless it is in writing signed by both par-
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
704.03
LANDLORD AND TENANT
ties. Any other agreement between the landlord and tenant to terminate a lease prior to its normal expiration date, or to terminate a periodic tenancy or tenancy at will without the statutory notice required by s. 704.19 may be either oral or written. Nothing herein prevents surrender by operation of law. (5) PROOF. In any case where a lease or agreement is not in writing signed by both parties but is enforceable under this section, the lease or agreement must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. History: 1993 a. 486; 2011 a. 143. Cross-reference: See also ss. ATCP 134.03, 134.04, 134.08, and 134.09, Wis. adm. code. If there is no written lease, s. 704.07 applies to the obligation to make repairs. For there to be a remedy for a breach of a duty to repair other than that provided in s. 704.07, the obligation must be in a written lease signed by both parties. Halverson v. River Falls Youth Hockey Ass’n, 226 Wis. 2d 105, 593 N.W.2d 895 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2445. The unambiguous language of sub. (1) requires only a “reasonably definite” description of the premises, not a legal or pictorial description. In this case, the description was reasonably definite not only because it set forth the address and parcel number of the property to be leased, but it also provided that the lease applied to all the land and buildings on that property. As such, the description left no room for reasonable dispute as to the property that was subject to the lease. MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co., 2025 WI App 18, 415 Wis. 2d 590, 19 N.W.3d 582, 23-1982. The phrase “amount of rent” under sub. (1) means the total number of dollars to be paid in a period for the possession and use of the property. In this case, the lease did not satisfy the amount of rent requirement under sub. (1) when the lease failed on its face to state the amount of base rent owed, it failed on its face to provide all of the information necessary to calculate the base rent, and it failed to provide a foundation, link, or key to extrinsic documents that could supply the square footage necessary to calculate the amount of rent owed as base rent. MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co., 2025 WI App 18, 415 Wis. 2d 590, 19 N.W.3d 582, 23-1982. Before parol evidence can be used in the context of the statute of frauds, the description in the conveyance must furnish some foundation, link, or key to the extrinsic testimony that identifies the property. The foundation, link, or key rule applies to the statute of frauds requirements for all land transactions, including leases exceeding a one-year term. MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Co., 2025 WI App 18, 415 Wis. 2d 590, 19 N.W.3d 582, 23-1982.