Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Municipalities — special assessments

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 6, 2012//

Municipalities — special assessments

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 6, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Municipalities — special assessments

In 1965, the Hillsboro School District constructed a high school on District property, former farmland, within the city limits of the City of Hillsboro. The construction project included creation of a new road, School Road, which provided access to the high school. In 2010, the City improved School Road to address a storm water runoff problem in the area. The City then levied a special assessment against the District to cover the District’s portion of the cost of the improvements to the road.

The District filed a complaint against the City in circuit court, seeking to annul the special assessment. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing that School Road was District property and therefore the City was without authority to construct the improvements or to levy the special assessment. The City also moved for summary judgment, on the ground that School Road was no longer District property but instead had become a public highway belonging to the City, by operation of Wis. Stat. § 82.31(2)(a) (2009-10), because the City had “worked” School Road “as a public highway” for more than ten years before undertaking the improvements.

The circuit court ruled in favor of the City, dismissing the District’s complaint on summary judgment. The court concluded that there was undisputed evidence showing that the City had “worked” the road “as a public highway” for more than ten years.

Given case law interpreting the concept of “worked as a public highway” in Wis. Stat. § 82.31(2)(a), we conclude that case law allows a property owner to defeat a municipal claim under the statute by showing that such work was at least initially done by permission of the property owner, and that the municipality did not subsequently take unequivocally “hostile” actions regarding use or ownership of the property, meaning actions inconsistent with the property owner’s rights. Here, there are reasonable inferences from the parties’ affidavits giving rise to factual disputes as to whether the City’s work on the road was initially permissive and whether the City subsequently took actions that unequivocally signaled hostility regarding use or ownership of the property. Therefore, neither the City nor the District was entitled to summary judgment and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP888 School District of Hillsboro v. City of Hillsboro

Dist IV, Vernon County, Rosborough, J., Blanchard, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Axe, Kenneth B., Madison; Lawton, Michael J., Madison; For Respondent: Roy, Steven A., Sauk City; Homar, Timothy M., Sauk City

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests