Opinion ID: 1690049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sidewalk Assessment.

Text: The original judgment required respondents to pay for sidewalk improvements. After reconsideration, the trial court ordered the judgment modified to hold respondents responsible for sidewalks only to the extent that they had made arrangements with the city to do the work. If no arrangements were made, the respondents were liable only for the sidewalks installed up to the time the agreement was consummated. Both parties seek review from this portion of the judgment. There is little evidence in the record on the whole question. In conjunction with testimony on an alleged lost sale Lesperance testified that Hope Acres still had to supply at [its] expense the curb, gutter and sidewalk. This testimony is the only positive evidence of responsibility in the record. The agreement lacks any express sidewalk provision. Respondent Harris Port Estates was to be liable for sewer, water, sewer and water laterals to lot line, road . . . , and gas and electric utilities. Paragraph five directed the purchaser to pay for improvements for curb and gutter if and when required. Paragraph eleven imposed the burden on respondents to pay all taxes and special assessments. Although the correspondence and the testimony of the city engineer establish that the cost of the sidewalks was to be assessed against either the subdivider or the owner, there is nothing to indicate if any agreement was made or assessments levied. We are satisfied that the whole subject of responsibility for sidewalks was not given sufficient attention and that pursuant to sec. 251.09, Stats., in the interests of justice a new hearing should be held on this limited issue and new findings and conclusions and amended judgment should be entered thereon. By the Court. Judgment as modified by the trial court reversed by striking any provision therefrom pertaining to sidewalks; cause remanded for further proceedings as to sidewalks, option to purchase, and tolling of interest, such proceedings to be not inconsistent with this opinion; judgment affirmed in all other respects; no costs on this appeal to either party. The following memorandum was filed June 25, 1965.