Opinion ID: 1799884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Can a town which acquires property by an ultra vires act assert the defense of adverse possession?

Text: In addition, the plaintiff contends that though the occupancy be found adverse to the special administrator in terms of the statutes barring actions for the recovery of real property, nevertheless title cannot be acquired in this instance where the taking is not for a public purpose.  Sec. 60.01, Stats., provides in part: Each organized town is a body corporate and empowered to sue and be sued; to purchase, take and hold real and personal property for public uses and convey and dispose of the same . . . The plaintiff asserts that the acquisition was not for any public purpose and concludes that on a demurrer that allegation must be accepted as a factual verity. We do not agree since whether a particular act or conduct is a public purpose is a matter of law and not of fact. Legal conclusions are not admitted on demurrer. Miller v. Welworth Theatres (1956), 272 Wis. 355, 359, 75 N. W. (2d) 286. Plaintiff, however, buttresses his claim with the assertion that sec. 49.025, Stats. 1943, provided that no person shall be denied relief on the ground that he has an equity in a home in which he lives, and further provides that no applicant for relief shall be required to assign his equity in his homestead as a condition for receiving relief. Plaintiff has alleged in his complaint that the conveyance was made as a condition precedent to the deceased receiving general relief from the defendant. These are facts well pleaded that must be accepted as a verity on demurrer. We are obliged to conclude, assuming the truth of the allegations, that the town exacted an illegal condition from the deceased as a prerequisite to the granting of relief. The plaintiff would have us conclude from this that the acquisition of property under these circumstances was ultra vires and not for a public purpose, and since the transaction was void there could be no vesting of title as the result of the illegal transaction, or by adverse possession thereafter. We do not agree. In the first place, the public-purpose doctrine is not designed to be used as a sword against a governmental unit or its taxpayers. It is a shield conceived for the purpose of protecting the public treasury from the onslaughts of those who would drain off its resources to the detriment of the governmental unit, at the  expense of its taxpayers and for private benefit. None of these elements are apparent here. However, though it were conceded that the acquisition was not for a public purpose, and were we to find that the action of the town in insisting upon the conveyance prior to granting relief was illegal, we cannot thereby conclude that title could not be acquired by adverse possession. 10 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (3d ed.), p. 24, sec. 28.11, recognizes distinction when dealing with an acquisition by adverse possession: But while a municipality cannot purchase land for other than municipal purposes, it may sometimes acquire land by adverse possession, or by gift for other than corporation objects. . . . `The cases cited in support of the exceptions do not go to the point that a town cannot acquire land by possession for other than municipal purposes, but only to the point that it is ultra vires for a town to purchase land for other than such purposes. We think this is quite a different proposition; for a town cannot purchase land without expending its moneys, and it has no right to expend its moneys, raised by taxation or otherwise for municipal purposes, for other purposes. The acquirement of land by possession does not involve an expenditure any more than does the acquirement of land by deed of gift or by devise . . .' Whether the conveyance was contrary to public purpose and hence void cannot be raised by the plaintiff. The general rule as stated in Corpus Juris Secundum is: . . . where a municipal corporation having power to acquire property for some purposes, but not for others, takes it for unauthorized purposes the transfer is not void but vests title in the corporation which may be questioned only by the state, a taxpayer, or some person authorized to represent the inhabitants of the municipality. 63 C. J. S., Municipal Corporations, p. 521, sec. 971. In the case of Roelvink v. Milwaukee (1956), 273 Wis. 605, 79 N. W. (2d) 106, plaintiffs based a cause of action upon a claim that at the time of the conveyance  there was no legal public purpose for the acquisition of the property, and that therefore the acquisition was void. We therein held that the plaintiffs, who were seeking a reconveyance, were in no position to challenge the holding of the property by the city, as the challenge should have been made only by the public or someone acting for it. To reach that conclusion, we relied on the rule as stated in McQuillan. `The power of a municipality to purchase or otherwise acquire real property can be questioned only by the state. The capacity of a municipal corporation to take a conveyance of land cannot, after the transfer has reached completion, be called in question in a collateral way, but this may be contested only by the state. In other words, the state alone can object to a municipality's want of capacity under its charter to hold lands acquired by purchase or by devise. Where a general authority exists in a municipal corporation to buy real estate for any purpose, the vendor in such case, may not afterwards avoid his contract by insisting his deed is void because the corporation may have exceeded its powers in making the purchase. Only the state may inquire whether the corporation has transcended its powers. So, the amount of real estate which a municipal corporation may hold is question only for the state.' Roelvink v. Milwaukee, supra, page 610. We likewise conclude that the estate of Herman Polanski cannot properly challenge the purchase for which the property was acquired. Plaintiff relies to some extent upon Smith v. Sherry (1882), 54 Wis. 114, 11 N. W. 465, holding that a tax deed was void, though the three-year period of limitations had passed, where the properly concerned was never within the territorial limits of the taxing authority. The defeat therein was jurisdictional, its facts are not analogous, and its holding is not controlling in the instant case. Though the original acquisition may have been contrary to law (we are not obliged to decide that point),  we have long ago taken the position that the legality, honesty, or good faith in the original acquisition is irrelevant when considering the question of adverse possession. In Peters v. Kell (1960), 12 Wis. (2d) 32, 40, 106 N. W. (2d) 407, we said: . . . it is immaterial whether such deed was obtained . . . through fraud in so far as the running of the ten-year limitation period prescribed by sec. 330.06, Stats., is concerned. See also Spellbrink v. Bramberg (1944), 245 Wis. 322, 14 N. W. (2d) 38. Similarly in Burkhardt v. Smith (1962), 17 Wis. (2d) 132, 140, 115 N. W. 540, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice HALLOWS, stated: Fifty years ago this court stated actual occupancy of land to the exclusion of the true owner, regardless of whether in good faith or bad faith, whether by mistake of boundaries, or with intent to claim the land with full knowledge the claim is wrongful, satisfies the call of the statute. We conclude that the same rationale applies here. Though plaintiff argues that the original occupation resulted from an illegal agreement, it is the policy of our law to put litigation at an end, to assure the stability of real-estate titles, and to protect those who maintain possession for the time specified by the statute under claim of title, while those who subsequently claim title remain dormant. By the Court. Order affirmed.