Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Property — eminent domain — displaced persons

Property — eminent domain — displaced persons

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Property — eminent domain — displaced persons

This case involves claims for relocation assistance and related benefits after the City of Janesville considered purchasing, but did not ultimately acquire, a property owned by Marc Blanc and rented by Schulz Automotive Machine, Ltd. Blanc and Schulz Automotive appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of the City, which effectively denied Schulz Automotive’s claim for relocation assistance and Blanc’s claims for rental losses and legal expenses. On appeal, Schulz Automotive argues that it meets the definition of a “displaced person” and thus is entitled to relocation assistance. Blanc argues that he is entitled to recovery of rental losses and legal expenses under constitutional and estoppel theories. We conclude that Schulz Automotive did not move from the property as a direct result of any circumstances set forth in Wis. Admin. Code § ADM 92.01(14)(a) (Dec. 2011) and thus is not a “displaced person” under the Wisconsin statutes and administrative code. We also conclude that Blanc is not entitled to rental losses or legal expenses under any of the theories on which he relies. Therefore, we affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP2532 Blanc, et al. v. City of Janesville

Dist IV, Rock County, Dillon, J., Kloppenburg, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Marcuvitz, Alan, Milwaukee; Roschke, Andrea H., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Klimczyk, Waldemar H., Janesville; Southwick, Benjamin, Richland Center

Leave a Comment