By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 11, 2010//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 11, 2010//
Property
Eminent domain; notice
A clerk of circuit court needs to comply strictly with the notice requirements in sec. 32.06(8) in order to commence the sixty-day time limit for an appeal pursuant to sec. 32.06(10).
“The supreme court has quoted the following passage from the Nichols treatise that is referenced above in Bee Frank: ‘The rule of strict construction applies to the power of the condemnor and to the exercise of such power. It is a rule intended for the benefit of the owner who is deprived of his property against his will. It follows, therefore, that the converse of this rule is also true. Statutory provisions in favor of an owner, such as provisions regulating the remedies of such owner and the compensation to be paid to him, are to be liberally construed.’ 1 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 3.213[4] (rev. 3d ed. 1976); See Lenz v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 111 Wis. 198, 206, 86 N.W. 607 (1901). Aero Auto Parts, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 78 Wis. 2d 235, 241, 253 N.W.2d 896 (1977). The instant case involves a landowner’s access to remedies through appeal from a compensation award. Thus, liberal construction in favor of a landowner is called for in addressing the question of whether a clerk’s substantial compliance with the notice requirements contained in Wis. Stat. § 32.06(8) is sufficient to trigger a landowner’s right to appeal a condemnation award.”
“We believe that these rules of construction undermine the condemnor’s claim that clerks of circuit court need not comply with each requirement set forth in the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 32.06(8). Section 32.06(8) reflects meaningful legislative choices directing that notice of an award is given to the parties themselves and not to their attorneys, and that certified mail with return receipt requested be used.”
Reversed and Remanded.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2009AP2583 Dahir Lands, LLC, v. American Transmission Co, LLC
Dist. IV, Sauk County, Taggart, J., Blanchard, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Grimmer, Kim, Madison; For Respondent: Steichen, Mark J., Madison; Stadler, Katherine, Madison; Renfro, Hannah L., Madison