Source: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-supreme-court/1062807.html
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 22:17:55
Document Index: 226290274

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200213', '§\u200280', '§\u200213', '§\u200213', '§\u200280', '§\u200280', '§\u200280']

STELPFLUG v. TOWN BOARD TOWN OF WAUKESHA COUNTY OF WAUKESHA - FindLaw
STELPFLUG v. TOWN BOARD TOWN OF WAUKESHA COUNTY OF WAUKESHA
John C. STELPFLUG and Diane L. Stelpflug, Petitioners-Respondents, v. TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF WAUKESHA, COUNTY OF WAUKESHA, Wisconsin, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, John Schiess and Tanis Schiess, and Mark Schwartz and Melody Schwartz, Respondents-Intervenors-Respondents-Cross-Appellants-Petitioners.
No. 97-3078.
Decided: July 6, 2000
For the respondents-intervenors-respondents-cross appellants-petitioners there were briefs by Donald J. Murn, Michelle E. Martinand Murn Law Offices, Waukesha, and oral argument by Donald J. Murn. For the respondent-appellant-cross respondent there was a brief by James W. Hammes and Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP, Waukesha, and oral argument by James W. Hammes.
John and Tanis Schiess and Mark and Melody Schwartz (the Petitioners) seek review of an order by the court of appeals that summarily reversed the judgment of the Waukesha County Circuit Court, the Honorable Marianne E. Becker presiding. In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Becker held that a portion of the Petitioners' properties had been temporarily condemned for a highway by the Town of Waukesha (Town). As a result of this temporary taking, the circuit court concluded that art. I, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and this court's takings jurisprudence, required that just compensation be paid to the Petitioners. The circuit court judge determined that Petitioners were to split $4685.86 as compensation for the taking. An award for Petitioners' attorney fees was also ordered. In reversing the circuit court's decision, the court of appeals concluded that no temporary taking had occurred.¶ 2 We hold that the Petitioners' property was temporarily taken for use as a public highway pursuant to the procedures set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 80.17 through 80.21 (1991-92).1 As a result, just compensation is owed the Petitioners under art. I, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution. We further conclude that there is a material issue of fact on the question of proper damages for the taking and remand this case for a trial on damages. Finally, we conclude that attorney fees cannot be awarded as damages for a claim brought directly under art. I, § 13.Facts and Procedural History¶ 3 This case has a lengthy background. The relevant facts are as follows.¶ 4 The Petitioners owned adjoining parcels of land in a Town of Waukesha subdivision, Lots 125 and 126. A third subdivision resident, John and Diane Stelpflug (Stelpflugs) owned Lot 120. The Stelpflugs believed Lot 120 to be landlocked. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 80.13,2 the Stelpflugs applied to the Town of Waukesha Board to lay out a highway to the property. ¶ 5 The Town of Waukesha Planning Commission voted to take no action on the Stelpflugs' application. Subsequently, the Stelpflugs brought an action in the Waukesha County Circuit Court seeking the appointment of commissioners pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 80.17. Section 80.17 provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by any order of the town supervisors laying out ․ any highway, or refusing so to do may ․ appeal from the order or determination to the circuit judge for the appointment of commissioners to review the order or determination.” 3 The statutory provisions related to review of a Town's decision on the laying out of a highway are set forth in full below, Wis. Stat. §§ 80.18,4 80.19,5 80.20 6 and 80.21.7 ¶ 6 Pursuant to the Stelpflugs' appeal, the circuit court appointed commissioners. The commissioners met and issued findings. First, the commissioners determined that the Stelpflug property was indeed landlocked. Second, the commissioners ordered that the Town of Waukesha should construct a public highway, two rods in width, over a portion of Lot 125, Lot 126, and a third lot not at issue here.8 Third, the commissioners established that the land identified for the highway was valued at $2197.36 for Lot 125 and $2311.24 for Lot 126. The Stelpflugs were assessed this amount a