Opinion ID: 2161334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Timeliness of the Action.

Text: The appellant also contends that the Vollerts' suit was not timely under sec. 62.25 (1) (e), Stats. The appellant claims that the instant suit was not commenced until July 1, 1963, long after the six months' period set by the aforesaid statute. However, the city erred in not serving a notice of disallowance, as required in sec. 62.25 (1) (c), Stats., and, therefore, the six months' period was not operative. Subsection (c) of this statute expressly provides: The clerk shall cause to be served on the claimant notice of any disallowance. . . . It goes on to provide that the notice shall be served by a policy officer in the manner of service of summons in justice court. No such notice was given to Mr. or Mrs. Vollert.  The city contends that the plaintiffs received the equivalent thereof when, on February 16, 1962, Mr. Vollert was informed at a meeting of a council committee that there was nothing that the city can do at this time. The statute is explicit as to the manner in which notice of disallowance is to be given. At most, Mr. Vollert was made aware that a committee of the council declined to grant his claim. This is not equivalent to the disallowance of the claim by the common council. The committee's report was, in fact, subsequently adopted by the common council, but the record does not show that the common council's action was communicated to the plaintiffs, let alone served on them, as the statute expressly requires. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.