03-2668 All Star Rent A Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Listen to this article

“Here, an ambiguity first arises from the definition of ‘agency’ in Wis. Stat. § 227.01(1), which defines ‘agency’ for purposes of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 as ‘the Wisconsin land council or board, commission, committee, department or officer in the state government, except the governor, a district attorney or a military or judicial officer.’ The DHA, however, is not a state ‘board, commission, committee, department or officer.’ Rather, it is a ‘division …which is attached to the department of administration under s. 15.03.’ Wis. Stat. § 15.103(1). A ‘division’ does not appear in the § 227.01(1) definition of ‘agency.’

“Thus, a reasonable person reading Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1), in conjunction with § 227.01(1) and § 15.103(1), could reasonably conclude that the DHA is not an agency, and thus cannot be the entity which must be served in order to satisfy § 227.53(1). And, because it was the DOT that decided to seek revocation of All Star’s motor vehicle dealer license and to deny its renewal, All Star could reasonably conclude that the DOT, a ‘department’ and thus an ‘agency,’ was the proper entity to name as respondent and serve under § 227.53(1)….

“In sum, we are not persuaded that any of the matters raised by the DOT renders All Star’s reading of the service statute unreasonable. For the reasons we have explained, All Star could reasonably read the statutes at issue to mean that it must name and serve the DOT, which unlike the DHA, is an ‘agency’ within the definition of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(1). The ambiguity in these statutes, when applied to the present facts, requires that we apply a liberal interpretation of the service requirements in Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1).”

Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order dismissing All Star’s petition for review, and we remand to the circuit court for consideration of All Star’s petition on its merits.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Krueger, J., Deininger, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Richard J. Ward, Madison

For Respondent: F. Thomas Creeron III, Madison