Opinion ID: 1841181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Review of Detachment Decisions

Text: ถ 67. Both the circuit court and the court of appeals assumed that this action was governed by the review principles of statutory certiorari, and they conducted their analyses accordingly. ถ 68. The legislature did not make clear what kind of hearing it intended for an appeal under ง 33.26(7). It imposed no requirement that a county board conduct an evidentiary hearing on objections to a lake district or make a record of its decision other than a resolution creating the lake district with certain required findings. Likewise, it imposed no requirement for an evidentiary hearing when a lake district board considers a detachment petition. Yet the legislature did not authorize a circuit court, on appeal, to take additional evidence in either situation. ถ 69. Wisconsin Stat. งง 33.26(7) and 33.33(3) each afford an aggrieved party a right to appeal. This implies that the decision to grant review is not discretionary with the court, and that suggests statutory certiorari. ถ 70. In Stacy v. Ashland County Department of Public Welfare, 39 Wis. 2d 595, 601, 159 N.W.2d 630 (1968), we examined the question of review by certiorari where no provision was made for a review of a decision by a board or commission. We concluded that where there are no statutory provisions for judicial review, the action of a board or commission may be reviewed by way of certiorari. Id. The situation in Stacy is somewhat analogous to the situation here. ถ 71. Although ง 33.26(7) does not mention certiorari, it does use the words petition and appeal. In the absence of any additional grant of authority to the court, we believe the words of the statute imply that the court is largely confined to a previously existing record. See Nielsen v. Waukesha County Bd. of Supervisors, 178 Wis. 2d 498, 521, 504 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1993). This view is supported by comparing a ง 33.26(7) hearing to a ง 33.32(1)(f) hearing, which is utilized for a challenge to an assessment. [20] The latter hearing appears to contemplate more than a review of existing evidence. ถ 72. In Lakeshore Development Corp. v. Plan Commission, 12 Wis. 2d 560, 107 N.W.2d 590 (1961), the court explained that: The writ of certiorari at common law was limited in scope and . . . usually raised only questions of jurisdiction or excess power set forth as errors in the petition . . . The return was taken as conclusive if responsive to the petition and could not be impeached by collateral affidavits. . . . The scope and purpose of the writ of certiorari has been enlarged by statute and it is now used as a method of appeal to determine not only the jurisdiction of a municipal board . . . but also to review the action of such a board as arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory and sometimes to decide the merits of the action. Id. at 565. [16] ถ 73. We do not perceive any authority for a court to decide de novo the merits of an action in detachment. We see review based on inquiry as to (1) whether a lake district board kept within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it proceeded on a correct theory of law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that the board might reasonably make the determination in question.