By: Derek Hawkins//November 1, 2017//
WI Court of Appeals – District IV
Case Name: Timothy P. Otterstatter v. City of Watertown
Case No.: 2016AP2000
Officials: Sherman, Blanchard and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Focus: Appraisal Valuation
Otterstatter appeals the circuit court’s summary judgment decisions, arguing that the City’s jurisdictional offer to purchase the property for $30,000 more than the value established by the City’s retained appraiser invalidated the acquisition because the jurisdictional offer was not “based” “upon” a proper appraisal, as required by WIS. STAT. § 32.05(2)(b). Specifically, Otterstatter argues that the jurisdictional offer was invalid for any one of three reasons: (1) the amount of the jurisdictional offer did not equal the appraisal valuation; (2) the jurisdictional offer was not the result of negotiation; or (3) the jurisdictional offer was not the result of a new, more recent appraisal. We reject Otterstatter’s argument as contrary to the plain language of the statutes governing the jurisdictional offer process and to the undisputed facts of record.
Otterstatter also appeals the circuit court’s issuance of the writ of assistance, arguing that the City did not comply with all jurisdictional requirements as required by WIS. STAT. § 32.05(8). Specifically, Otterstatter argues that the City failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of providing a valid ninety-day notice to vacate. Otterstatter argues that the City was required, but failed, to first acquire title to the property before providing Otterstatter with written notice to vacate the property within ninety days, and, therefore, the notice to vacate was invalid. We reject Otterstatter’s argument as contrary to the plain language of the statutes governing the notice to vacate.
Because we reject Otterstatter’s challenges to the validity of the jurisdictional offer and the notice to vacate, we affirm.
Recommended for Publication