Opinion ID: 2150944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were plaintiffs' objections untimely?

Text: The next hearing on this matter was held February 5, 1970. The purpose of this hearing was to confirm the benefits and damages which had been assessed against various landowners in the district. At that hearing which was adjourned and reconvened on February 11, 1970, plaintiffs tried to proceed under sec. 88.33 (1), Stats., which provides as follows: Drainage project may be stopped prior to organization of district. (1) At any time prior to the entry of the  order organizing a drainage district, the owners who represent a majority of the lands described in the petition for drainage or who represent a majority of the lands contained in the report of the drainage board may file with the court a petition requesting that no further proceeding be had and that no further expense chargeable to the proposed drainage district be incurred. The trial court held that it was too late for plaintiffs to raise any further objections to the creation and existence of the drainage district itself. The court noted that since sec. 88.33 (1), Stats., allows objections only at any time prior (emphasis supplied) to the entry of the final order declaring the district to be organized, and since that order had already been entered by the court (orally on August 20, 1969, and in writing on January 6, 1970), the court properly concluded that plaintiffs' objections were untimely and not entitled to any further consideration. The court further concluded that plaintiffs' petition amounted to nothing more than a motion for rehearing; and the statute makes no provision for a rehearing of objections to the organization of the drainage district. Plaintiffs' response to the trial court's conclusion is that their petition is grounded on fraud in that it states: 3. Acreage was eliminated from said petition after protest by the owners thereof, without the court being advised of that fact, and this had the effect of reducing the number of signers of the petition below the number required by law. While there were some changes in boundaries, in each instance the report was amended, keeping the court apprised of these changes. Sec. 88.35 (3), Stats., allows the board to extend or contract the boundaries of the district so as to include or exclude lands. Plaintiffs have not specifically charged fraud and have not pointed to any specific evidence from which an inference  of fraud could be drawn. Therefore, as to this aspect of the appeal, the trial court's ruling was proper.