02-2541 Town of Campbell v. City of La Crosse

Listen to this article

“If the claim asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the transaction or occurrence set forth in the complaint, then the amendment relates back to the filing of the original pleading. Section 802.09(3). In other words, if the original pleading was filed within the statute of limitations and the conditions of § 802.09(3) are met, the fact that a statute of limitations has expired between the filing of the summons and complaint and the motion to amend is not a reason to deny a motion to amend.”

Where there was evidence that three of the four annexations were unanimous, direct annexations in which petitioners included only the property they owned and the assistance of city personnel in filling out forms and preparing the legal descriptions was no more than reasonable technical help, we reject the town’s contention that the City was the controlling influence under the so-called rule of reason criteria.

And, even though the properties annexed by the city were already developed, the need component of the rule of reason is satisfied as well by the needs of the property owners and we conclude that if the petitioners are in need of services the Town cannot provide but the City can, the need factor is met.

“The trial court here found that the petitioners had an urgent need for clean and odor-free water, which the Town could not supply…. Since the annexations, the households in the annexed territories have been supplied with municipal water by the City of La Crosse and that has eliminated the problems caused by their private wells….

In summary, we conclude that the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the record, and based on these findings, we agree with the trial court that the Town did not establish that a component of the rule of reason was not met.”

However, the trial court properly determined that the Edwards annexation was improper under the rule of reason because Mr. Edwards had failed to make out a demonstrable need.

“As the City implicitly acknowledges, Edwards had a source of potable water for his property at the time of the annexation and still did more than four years later. There is no evidence, and no reasonable inference from the evidence, that this situation will change in the future. As for the assertion that the annexation will provide him with a more economical supply of water, there is no evidence of when, if ever, the City will supply him with water or what the cost will be if and when the City does provide him with water. There is therefore no evidence of a demonstrable future need that the City is able to satisfy.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, La Crosse County, Montabon, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John D. Claypool, Appleton

For Respondent: Terence R. Collins, La Crosse; Patrick J. Houlihan, La Crosse; Pamela A. Captain, La Crosse; Cheryl M. Gill, La Crosse