Opinion ID: 2655721
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sufficiency of CED's Original Complaint

Text: ¶24 CED argues that the City issued a single special assessment and that under Wisconsin's rules of notice pleading, its original complaint placed the City on notice that it intended to challenge the entire amount of that assessment. In addition, CED argues that the City's answer to its original complaint supports CED's argument because the City's answer makes reference to a single special assessment. ¶25 The City argues that municipalities customarily issue two separate special assessments for corner lots and that the City clearly and unambiguously levied two special assessments as indicated by the assessment schedules. The City further contends that CED appealed only the Murdock Avenue special assessment because the original complaint references $19,241.73, which corresponds to the Murdock Avenue special assessment. The City concedes that the special assessments were procedurally invalid because they failed to include [a]n estimate of the entire cost of the proposed work or improvement as required by Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(5)(b) and also lacked any statement that the property against which the assessments are proposed is benefited . . . as required by Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(5)(d). ¶26 Despite these procedural inadequacies, the City maintains that CED appealed only the Murdock Avenue special 12 No. 2012AP5 assessment within the 90-day time limit required by Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(a). Since the City argues that Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(a) is the controlling statute, it asks this court to conclude that the Jackson Street special assessment appeal was untimely. ¶27 While we agree with the circuit court and the court of appeals that the City issued two special assessments as indicated by the assessment schedules, we ultimately conclude that CED's original complaint gave the City reasonable and sufficient notice that it intended to appeal the entire amount of special assessments levied against its property. First, Wis. Stat. § 802.02, governing the general rules of pleadings, applies to appeals of special assessments under Wis. Stat. § 66.0703. This result is dictated by the text of Wis. Stat. § 801.01(2), which, in part, provides: Chapters 801 to 847 govern procedure and practice in circuit courts of this state in all civil actions and special proceedings whether cognizable as cases at law, in equity or of statutory origin except where different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule. Wis. Stat. § 801.01(2) (emphasis added). ¶28 Special assessment appeals under Wis. Stat. § 66.0703 are special proceedings. Mayek v. Cloverleaf Lakes Sanitary Dist. No. 1, 2000 WI App 182, ¶5, 238 Wis. 2d 261, 617 N.W.2d 235 (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 66.60, the predecessor to Wis. Stat. § 66.0703); Outagamie Cnty. v. Town of Greenville, 2000 WI App 65, ¶7, 233 Wis. 2d 566, 608 N.W.2d 414 (reviewing the 13 No. 2012AP5 procedures to appeal a special assessment under Wis. Stat. § 66.60(12)(a)). ¶29 Since the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure apply to special proceedings such as special assessment appeals under Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(a), we next consider whether any conflict exists between rules of notice pleading and Wis. Stat. § 66.0703. After careful consideration of Wis. Stat. §§ 802.02, 801.01(2), and 802.02(6), along with review of our prior case law on notice pleading, we conclude that nothing in Wis. Stat. § 66.0703 conflicts with Wisconsin's notice pleading rules. Furthermore, we find no reason why the principles of notice pleading should not apply to appeals of special assessments under § 66.0703. ¶30 Under principles of notice pleading, we are satisfied that CED's original complaint was sufficient to challenge the entire amount of the special assessments levied against its property. This is because the original complaint placed the City on reasonable and sufficient notice that it intended to appeal the entirety of the special assessments. ¶31 First, the original complaint identified the parcel number, 15-1898-1000, against which the City levied the special assessments. The property in question is identified by one and only one parcel number. Second, the original complaint identified the improvement project for which the special assessments were issued as the Jackson Street – Murdock Avenue intersection improvement project. Not only does the original 14 No. 2012AP5 complaint identify the name of the improvement project, but the project name itself references both street names in question. ¶32 The fact that CED included only the amount of the Murdock Avenue special assessment in its original complaint does not defeat CED's intention to appeal the entire amount of the special assessments. By listing the parcel number and the name of the improvement project along with a reference to both street names, CED's original complaint placed the City on reasonable and sufficient notice that it intended to appeal the entire amount of special assessments levied against its property. To conclude otherwise would hold CED to the type of technical pleading requirements that we have held no longer apply under our rules of civil procedure. ¶33 Having concluded that CED's original complaint properly appealed both the Murdock Avenue and Jackson Street special assessments, we also conclude that CED's appeal was timely and that summary judgment in favor of CED is appropriate. In its original complaint, CED asserted that the City failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(5) when issuing the special assessments in question. As we have previously discussed, the City conceded that it did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(5). Due to the City's failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(5) in regard to both the Murdock Avenue and the Jackson Street special assessments and CED's timely appeal of both special assessments, we conclude that no genuine issues of material fact remain, and this case is appropriate to resolve, 15 No. 2012AP5 in favor of CED, on summary judgment, based on the legal issue presented. ¶34 Because we hold that CED's original complaint contained sufficient information to place the City on reasonable notice of CED's intent to appeal the total amount of special assessments, we do not reach CED's alternative argument regarding the application of Wisconsin's relation back statute to special assessment appeals.