00-3399 Smith v. Williams, et al.

Listen to this article

We conclude that the exclusive remedy provisions of sec. 66.05(3) apply only to claims premised on the reasonableness of the order to raze, not to claims such as those asserted by plaintiff which arise from acts that occur while carrying out the raze order – specifically, torts committed in carrying out the raze order, challenges to the reasonableness of the costs of razing, and damages for removal of salvage for which plaintiff did not receive a credit.

“We conclude that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 66.05(3) provides the exclusive remedy for challenging the reasonableness of a raze order; if the razing is not prevented through use of the procedures established in § 66.05(3), an affected person may not recover damages for the razing and removal of a building carried out pursuant to that order on the ground that the order was not reasonable. However, we also conclude that the plain language of § 66.05(3) does not preclude an affected person from seeking damages for torts committed in carrying out a raze order that are not premised on the wrongfulness or unreasonableness of the order. We emphasize, however, that acts that are implicitly or explicitly authorized by the order are not torts.”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Sullivan, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Mark Murphy, Wauwatosa

For Respondent: Grant F. Langley, Milwaukee; Beverly A. Temple, Milwaukee; Jeffrey J. Conta, Milwaukee