Statutory Interpretation – Dispute Resolution

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Dr. Stuart White, et al. v. City of Watertown

Case No.: 2019 WI 9

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Dispute Resolution

Some adjoining landowners in the City of Watertown have a long-standing dispute over who must pay to construct and maintain partition fencing between their properties. This case, however, is not about the neighbors’ dispute, at least not directly. It is instead about the mechanism by which that dispute is addressed. The Whites say the City of Watertown is responsible for conducting a statutorily-prescribed procedure for resolving fence-related disputes. The City of Watertown, on the other hand, says the statutes authorize only towns——not cities——to conduct such proceedings.

Although we affirm the court of appeals, we have traveled a different analytical route. The court of appeals reasoned that the legislature inadvertently eliminated a city’s authority to administer the Enforcement Procedures in 1878. Its conclusion that Chapter 90 is ambiguous probably stems chiefly from the parties’ failure to bring Wis. Stat. § 990.01(42) to its attention. However, as we described above, the legislature never eliminated a city’s authority to enforce landowners’ partition fence-related obligations, it merely restructured the manner in which it expressed the authorization. That structure has carried forward to Chapter 90 and § 990.01(42). So we conclude that Chapter 90’s plain language, when read in light of § 990.01(42), unambiguously authorizes the City to administer the Enforcement Procedures.

For the reasons we described, we agree with the Whites and so affirm the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur:

Dissent:

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.