I remember reading a post like this a bit ago, where the city in WI didn't even record it or anything.. it would have been completely impossible to find that information out in any way, and yet they somehow still have authority to impose the order.

On top of that you can't even guarantee your new tenant will stay long enough at that $50/mo increase to payoff your unnecessary $4,000 turnover cost. 

If you do not do so, I intend to sue you in small claims court, and I will ask the judge to require you to reimburse me for all rent I have paid that was unnecessary due to your lack of attempting to re-rent the unit, plus any punitive damages allowed and my court costs.Sincerely,Your SisterI bet he knocks it off.  

Completely unnecessary, and it can actually work against you in court if the judge determines the contract was not easily understood, therefore, the tenant didn't understand what they were agreeing to.  

They are in their second year of tenancy and I want to serve them notice to quit but am unsure which notice and timeline to impose on this.  

With so many options to pay rent collecting cash seems unnecessary. 

These laws do nothing but punish the law-abiding "good" landlords by shaking them down for annual fees, wasted time, and unnecessary expenses.

That might be salt in the wound in her eyes, and unnecessary (assuming there already is a clause that covers this).Tenants know when they're being unreasonable. 

You are just adding unnecessary drama to your life. :)  

A local RE attorney should have local RE law expertise that puts my knowledge on that market to shame.We have similar language in our lease and the majority of the tenants treat the days between due date and late fees imposed as setting a later rent date even though the intent was this be margin for emergencies, etc.