Opinion ID: 2226867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: consent to suit

Text: As this court stated in Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis.2d 282, 291, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976): The concept of sovereign immunity in this state derives from art. IV, sec. 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides: `The legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the state.' From this provision the rule developed that the state cannot be sued without its consent. This immunity is procedural in nature and, if properly raised, deprives the court of personal jurisdiction over the state. (Footnotes omitted.) The state gives consent to some of the suits brought against it in sec. 775.01, Stats. (formerly sec. 285.01, Stats.) which reads: 775.01 Actions against state; bond. Upon the refusal of the legislature to allow a claim against the state the claimant may commence an action against the state by service as provided in s. 801.11 (3) and by filing with the clerk of court a bond, not exceeding $1,000, with 2 or more sureties, to be approved by the attorney general, to the effect that the claimant will indemnify the state against all costs that may accrue in such action and pay to the clerk of court all costs, in case the claimant fails to obtain judgment against the state. This statute has been interpreted as giving the state's consent to suit in some causes of action but not in others. As this court said in Cords v. State, 62 Wis.2d 42, 50, 214 N.W.2d 405 (1974): As for statutory consent by the state to suit in tort, this court has found none. Sec. 285.01, Stats., has been interpreted as limited to claims which if valid would render the state a debtor to the claimant.14 [n. 14 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. v. State, supra, footnote 13; Houston v. State (1898), 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111; Holzworth v. State (1941), 238 Wis. 63, 298 N.W. 163; Townsend v. Wisconsin Desert Horse Asso., supra, footnote 10; Chart v. Gutmann (1969), 44 Wis.2d 421, 171 N.W.2d 331.] Sec. 270.58 has also been interpreted not to be a consent by the state to be sued in tort.15 [n. 15 Forseth v. Sweet, supra, footnote 9, at page 682.] In Trempealeau County v. State, 260 Wis. 602, 51 N.W.2d 499 (1952) the court ruled that a suit for recovery of funds wrongfully paid to the state was an action at law for the recovery of money had and received which rendered the state a debtor and was therefore within the purview of sec. 285.01, Stats. In Hicks v. Milwaukee County, 71 Wis.2d 401, 238 N.W.2d 509 (1976) the court came to the same conclusion. In Hicks the court described the nature of a claim for money had and received saying: In an action for money had and received on a theory of quasi -contract, recovery is allowed where the defendant has received a benefit from the plaintiff and the retention of such benefit by the defendant would be inequitable. The law implies a promise of repayment when no rule of public policy or good morals has been violated. The action is one at law, although governed by equitable principles.9 [n. 9 Arjay Investment Co. v. Kohlmetz (1960), 9 Wis.2d 535, 101 N.W.2d 700.] . . . The focus in unjust enrichment cases is on the benefit received from the plaintiff by the defendant which, in good conscience, should not be retained. That money has merely been retained in the county treasury, rather than expended, has nothing to do with the elements of the cause of action. In fact, there may be circumstances where the money has been expended in such a way that the county has not been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. Hicks at 404-05. [1] It is our conclusion that the complaint in the present case is sufficient to state a cause of action which comes within the coverage of sec. 775.01, Stats. The complaint on its face states two theories of recovery: (1) The constitutional tort of the state depriving a person of property without due process of law and (2) an equitable remedy based on the theory that the state held the funds at issue in a constructive trust. A complaint must simply contain a short and plain statement of the claim, identifying the transaction, occurrence or event or series of transactions, occurrences, or events out of which the claim arises and showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Sec. 802.02 (1) (a). The trial court correctly concluded that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action for money had and received which can be brought against the state under sec. 775.01. The court therefore has jurisdiction as long as the requirements of that section are met.