If you only remember one point about getting a security deposit back in Wisconsin, remember this: The cap is No statewide cap (ATCP 134 regulates return practices). The return deadline is 21 days after surrender of the premises, with an itemized statement of deductions. Interest: No statewide interest requirement. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Wis. Stat. § 704.28; Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 134.06. Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 100.20 / ATCP enforcement postures and related landlord-tenant remedies.
Interest and accounting
No statewide interest requirement.
Walking through Wisconsin facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Wisconsin authority does the work at each step.
A residential tenant moves out of a Wisconsin rental and the landlord has not returned the deposit.
- Check the cap that applied when the deposit was collected: No statewide cap (ATCP 134 regulates return practices).
- Calendar the return deadline: 21 days after surrender of the premises, with an itemized statement of deductions
- Interest, if any: No statewide interest requirement.
- If the landlord keeps money without the required accounting: Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 100.20 / ATCP enforcement postures and related landlord-tenant remedies.
Wisconsin does not set a statewide deposit maximum. Landlords must return deposits with an itemized statement within 21 days under § 704.28 and ATCP 134.06. Small claims is the usual forum.
Penalties for wrongful withholding
Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 100.20 / ATCP enforcement postures and related landlord-tenant remedies.
Practical process for tenants and landlords
Wisconsin does not set a statewide deposit maximum. Landlords must return deposits with an itemized statement within 21 days under § 704.28 and ATCP 134.06. Small claims is the usual forum.
Document the unit with dated photos or video at move-in and move-out, keep the lease and any inspection checklist, and send a dated written demand if the deadline passes without a lawful accounting.
Related Wisconsin guides
- How to file for divorce in Wisconsin
- Child custody and parenting time in Wisconsin
- DUI penalties in Wisconsin
Case law: security deposits in Wisconsin
M & I First National Bank, West Bend, Wisconsin, as Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Episcopal Homes Management
…ment with EHM was a lease and that their entrance fee was a security deposit pursuant to ch. ATCP 134 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. 6 They further alleged that they had previously vacated DeKoven, had demanded a return of their entrance fee and that EHM did not respond to this demand within the time limit set out in the code. Based on this failing, the Wilkin-sons sough…
On security deposits, M & I First National Bank, West Bend, Wisconsin, as Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Episcopal Homes Management speaks to the Wisconsin dispute in this passage: "EHM was a lease and that their entrance fee was a security deposit pursuant to ch. ATCP 134 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Brenda Shands, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Joseph Castrovinci, D/B/A Central City Housing, Defendant-Appellant
…laims action in Milwaukee county circuit court to recover a security deposit of $145 from her former landlord, Joseph Castrovinci, d/b/a Central City Housing. Shands alleged that her landlord had failed within twenty-one days of Shands’ vacating her rental unit either to refund her security deposit or to deliver to her a written statement of the claims made against her deposit,…
On security deposits, Brenda Shands, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Joseph Castrovinci, D/B/A Central City Housing, Defendant-Appellant speaks to the Wisconsin dispute in this passage: "Milwaukee county circuit court to recover a security deposit of $145 from her former landlord, Joseph Castrovinci, d/b/a Central City Housing." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Robert J. Baierl, D/B/A Supreme Builders, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John McTaggart and Susan McTaggar — Sykes, J
…h of lease; and 2) recover from their landlord double their security deposit, plus costs and actual attorneys' fees. In other words, the tenants intentionally inflicted a financial loss on the landlord, and the court says the landlord is not only precluded from recovering but is in fact required to pay the tenants who committed the breach in the first place, and who suffered no…
On security deposits, Robert J. Baierl, D/B/A Supreme Builders, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John McTaggart and Susan McTaggar — Sykes, J speaks to the Wisconsin dispute in this passage: "h of lease; and 2) recover from their landlord double their security deposit, plus costs and actual attorneys' fees. In other words, the tenants intentionally inflicted a financial loss on the landlord, and the court says the landlord is not only precluded from recovering but is" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Erin Moonlight, Special Administrator for Owen McCusker, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Boyce
…tends he has suffered a pecuniary loss in the amount of his security deposit under sec. 100.20(5), Stats., entitling him to recover double damages plus a reasonable attorney’s fee because the landlord failed to comply with the security deposit provisions of Wis. Adm. Code, sec. Ag 134.06(2) and (4). 1 The landlord (Boyce) argues that McCusker has not suffered any pecuniary loss…
Wisconsin opinions such as Erin Moonlight, Special Administrator for Owen McCusker, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Boyce are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "Stats., entitling him to recover double damages plus a reasonable attorney’s fee because the landlord failed to comply with the security deposit provisions of Wis. Adm. Code, sec. Ag 134.06(2) and (4)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Three & One Company, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. Ronald F. Geilfuss, Jr., and Annette Pietsch
…to the tenants, under sec. 100.20(5), Stats., of double the security deposit of $1200 and attorney's fees *406 of $535 for Three and One's failure to comply with the requirements of Wis. Adm. Code secs. Ag 134.06(2) and 134.06(4), regarding the return of the tenants' security deposit. 1 Three and One raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in assessing de…
Three & One Company, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. Ronald F. Geilfuss, Jr., and Annette Pietsch is worth reading on Wisconsin security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Stats., of double the security deposit of $1200 and attorney's fees *406 of $535 for Three and One's failure to comply with the requirements of Wis. Adm. Code secs. Ag 134.06(2) and 134.06(4), regarding the return of the tenants' security deposit." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
ADMANCO, Inc. by Michael S. Polsky, Receiver, Plaintiff-Respondent v. 700 STANTON DRIVE, LLC, Defe — Crooks, J
…Stanton and Admanco contained a provision with the heading "Security Deposit," which stated that Admanco would provide Stanton with a $61,313.66 cash security deposit5 and two irrevocable standby letters of credit for $375,000 each "representing security for the performance by Tenant of its rental obligations and certain of Tenant's other obligations hereunder." Both letters of…
ADMANCO, Inc. by Michael S. Polsky, Receiver, Plaintiff-Respondent v. 700 STANTON DRIVE, LLC, Defe — Crooks, J is worth reading on Wisconsin security deposits because the court put the point in its own words: "Stanton and Admanco contained a provision with the heading 'Security Deposit,' which stated that Admanco would provide Stanton with a $61,313." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Maximum deposit: No statewide cap (ATCP 134 regulates return practices)
- Return deadline: 21 days after surrender of the premises, with an itemized statement of deductions
- Interest: No statewide interest requirement.
- Penalties: Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 100.
- Primary authority: Wis. Stat. § 704.28; Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 134.06.
Deposit limits in Wisconsin
No statewide cap (ATCP 134 regulates return practices)
When the deposit must be returned
21 days after surrender of the premises, with an itemized statement of deductions
Frequently asked questions
How much can a landlord charge for a security deposit in Wisconsin?
No statewide cap (ATCP 134 regulates return practices)
How long does a landlord have to return my deposit?
21 days after surrender of the premises, with an itemized statement of deductions
What if my landlord keeps the deposit without an itemized list?
Wrongful withholding can support double damages of the amount wrongfully withheld under § 100.20 / ATCP enforcement postures and related landlord-tenant remedies.
This guide covers Wisconsin residential security-deposit law as of 2026. Commercial leases and local ordinances can differ — verify the statute that applies to your unit.