Opinion ID: 1875234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Replacement Housing Payment

Text: This payment has been determined to be $24,178.47, based on a comparable housing study of houses presently for sale on the real estate market, provided you sell your house to Milwaukee County for the above stated appraisal amount, which included a carve-out amount of $53,748.00, and you purchase a replacement dwelling which costs at least $77,926.47. (Emphasis added.) Pinczkowski's assertion that the County is forever bound by the initial offer of a replacement housing payment is undermined by the clear language of the letter. ¶75 Second, both statutory and administrative code provisions contemplate that the initial offer of a replacement housing payment is not static in amount. Rather, these provisions contemplate a more dynamic approach, allowing for re-computation of the payment after the acquisition damages have been more fully assessed. [15] ¶76 Under § 32.20, all claims for damages itemized in § 32.19 are ordinarily to be filed after the damages upon which they are based have fully materialized but no later than 2 years after the condemnor takes physical possession . . . . (Emphasis added.) Additionally, § Comm 202.68(6) provides as follows: (6) Advance payment in a condemnation case. An agency shall promptly pay a replacement housing payment. An advance payment shall be made when an agency determines the acquisition payment will be delayed because of condemnation proceedings. An agency's maximum offer shall be used as the acquisition price for calculating the payment. The payment shall be contingent on a person signing an affidavit of intent that: (a) The agency shall re-compute a replacement payment using the acquisition amount set by the court . . . . (Emphasis added.) ¶77 Given all the circumstances here, and given that Pinczkowski has not adequately explained how the facts of record support her interpretation of the carve-out formulas to yield a fixed replacement housing payment that could not change after the County's initial offer and calculation, we determine that Pinczkowski's application of the relevant statutory and administrative code provisions is no more reasonable than that of the department. We therefore uphold the department's determination that Pinczkowski was not entitled to a replacement housing payment.