00-2389 Matlin v. City of Sheboygan

Listen to this article

Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s petition.

“The interest of the City and public in preventing harm from dilapidated buildings is adequately served by the initial raze order. This triggers the events which may lead to the repair or removal of the dangerous buildings. The interests of the owner are likewise protected by adherence to basic principles of due process, requiring the City to prove its compliance with the statutory prerequisites of Wis. Stat. sec. 66.0413 for issuing raze orders. Certainly this is a desirable result, especially when the owner in this case has fulfilled every obligation imposed upon her for petitioning the court for a hearing in the first instance. …

“In this case, when we appropriately focus on the potential serious injury to the owner if she is not afforded an opportunity to be heard, we can only conclude that the statute is directory. We are convinced that allowing the hearing to proceed after lapse of the time period will protect the interests of the owner without significant risk of injury to the public. The correctness of this position is underscored by the general rule of liberal construction for procedural statutes in order to permit a determination upon the merits of the controversy.”

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Sheboygan County, Murphy, J., Brown, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael F. Bishop, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Charles C. Adams, Sheboygan