Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

De Novo Review – Summary Judgment – Issue of Material Fact

By: Derek Hawkins//September 8, 2021//

De Novo Review – Summary Judgment – Issue of Material Fact

By: Derek Hawkins//September 8, 2021//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: The Lakes of Ville Du Parc Condominium Association, Inc., v. City of Mequon, et al.,

Case No.: 2020AP600

Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ.

Focus: De Novo Review – Summary Judgment – Issue of Material Fact

This case involves open land, currently in a natural state, that was sold by the same seller twice. The seller is no longer in the picture, so the two buyers (or, more precisely, their successors and/or representatives) are left to wage this battle over the question of ownership. The Lakes of Ville Du Parc Condominium Association, Inc. (the Association) claims title on behalf of its members by virtue of a condominium declaration (Declaration) and survey map, prepared and recorded under WIS. STAT. §§ 703.07 and 703.09 (2019-20) and designating the land as an “outlot” and part of the condominium “common elements.” Thomas Weickardt purchased the land many years later without (he claims) notice of the Association’s interest.

As the prior purchaser, the Association would ordinarily prevail as a matter of course, so long as its interest was recorded first—which it was, in 1984 and 1985, shortly after the Declaration and an amendment were prepared. Here, however, things are a bit more complicated—after the Declaration was recorded (and long before the sale to Weickardt), the developer prepared and recorded a new survey map and caused the land to be recorded in the plat index under separate parcel identification numbers (PINs). The developer then purported to exercise a right it had under the Declaration to use a portion of the land to expand the adjoining country club’s golf course and, in that event, convey the land back to itself from the unit owners, through a power of attorney. Later on, the developer included the entire parcel as part of a sale of the country club. Weickardt purchased the country club (and the open land) after that, then sold just the open land to the City of Mequon. Weickardt claims that he was the rightful owner at the time of his sale to the City because a search of the plat index did not reveal the Association’s interest.

The circuit court ruled in favor of the Association, reasoning that in the absence of a so-called “removal instrument” as authorized by WIS. STAT. § 703.28, which would take the land outside the application of WIS. STAT. ch. 703, there were no grounds on which a subsequent purchaser could take condominium property over the Association’s interest. We agree with the circuit court’s ruling in favor of the Association, but for a different reason: despite being given a separate PIN, the Association’s interest was discoverable through a “reasonable search” and therefore was in the chain of title. See WIS. STAT. § 706.09(4). As a result, Weickardt was put on record notice of the Association’s ownership claim, and his interest is subordinate to the Association’s. Accordingly, we affirm.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests