Opinion ID: 1738699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comparable Replacement Property/Business

Text: ถ 22 To determine whether the writ of assistance was properly issued in this case, we must interpret Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) in regard to comparable replacement property and made available and Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) in regard to comparable replacement business. Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ถ 45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (quoting Seider v. O'Connell, 2000 WI 76, ถ 43, 236 Wis.2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659). Statutes are interpreted in the context in which they are used, as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes. Id., ถ 46. [A] statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more senses. Id., ถ 47. If a statute is ambiguous, the court may examine external sources, such as legislative history and the purpose of the statute. Id., ถ 48. ถ 23 Wisconsin Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)(c) addresses writs of assistance sought subsequent to eminent domain proceedings and provides, in relevant part: (b) . . . The condemnor has the right to possession when the persons who occupied the acquired property vacate, or hold over beyond the vacation date established by the condemnor, whichever is sooner, except as provided under par. (c). If the condemnor is denied the right of possession, the condemnor may, upon 48 hours' notice to the occupant, apply to the circuit court where the property is located for a writ of assistance to be put in possession. The circuit court shall grant the writ of assistance if all jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, if the award has been paid or tendered as required and if the condemnor has made a comparable replacement property available to the occupants, except as provided under par. (c). (c) The condemnor may not require the persons who occupied the premises on the date that title vested in the condemnor to vacate until a comparable replacement property is made available. This paragraph does not apply to any person who waives his or her right to receive relocation benefits or services under s. 32.197 or who is not a displaced person, as defined under s. 32.19(2)(e), unless the acquired property is part of a program or project receiving federal financial assistance. Under the plain language of the statute, there are three conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of assistance: (1) compliance with all jurisdictional requirements; (2) payment or tender of the [relocation assistance] award; and (3) making available comparable replacement property to the occupants. Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ 13, 651 N.W.2d 1 (quoting City of Racine v. Bassinger, 163 Wis.2d 1029, 1035, 473 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App.1991)). At issue in this case are: (1) the meaning of comparable replacement property employed in ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c); (2) the identification component of the made available obligation of ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c); and (3) the meaning of comparable replacement business defined in Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c). ถ 24 Comparable replacement property is not defined in Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c). However, we examine the language of surrounding or closely related statutes in order to interpret a statute in the context in which it is used. Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ถ 46, 681 N.W.2d 110. The relocation assistance law, Wis. Stat. ง 32.19 et seq., provides for payments to persons displaced by public projects in order that they be fairly compensated, not only for the property whose ownership is taken for a public purpose, but also for certain other financial consequences described in ง 32.19. [19] Section 32.19 is closely related to ง 32.05. [20] For example, ง 32.05(8)(c) expressly refers to the relocation assistance law and limits the requirement to make available a comparable replacement property to a displaced person, as defined under s. 32.19(2)(e), who has not waived his or her right to relocation assistance. ถ 25 There are three categories of property occupiers for whom the condemnor may be obligated to make available a comparable replacement property to a displaced person when a writ of assistance is sought following the exercise of the power of eminent domain: (1) an occupier whose dwelling must be vacated, Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(b); (2) an occupier whose business operation must be vacated, ง 32.19(2)(c); and (3) an occupier whose farming operation must be vacated, ง 32.19(2)(d). Since the relocation assistance law is closely related to condemnation law, we conclude that the phrase comparable replacement property in Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) unambiguously includes all three categories of occupiers of property set out in ง 32.19(2)(b)-(d). ถ 26 Here, the identification component for a replacement property under Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) is linked to the meaning of comparable replacement business. This is so because in order to fulfill the statutory directive of ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) when a business replacement is identified, it must be a business property that comes within the definition of Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c). Business replacement payments can be due to an occupier who is either an owner, ง 32.19(4m)(a), or a tenant, ง 32.19(4m)(b). Therefore, because CC Midwest is a tenant, we must determine whether a comparable replacement business pursuant to ง 32.19(2)(c) has been made available to this business tenant before a writ of assistance may issue pursuant to ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c). ถ 27 While it is not necessary to examine the legislative history behind Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) because we have concluded that comparable replacement property is unambiguous, we agree with the court of appeals' qualification that a person displaced by a condemnation [must] have comparable replacement property made available to the extent required by the relocation assistance law.  Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ 13, 651 N.W.2d 1 (quoting Bassinger, 163 Wis.2d at 1040, 473 N.W.2d 526). The Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) analysis of the original bill, 1981 S.B. 562, which created the language in ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) that requires a comparable replacement property to be made available, reveals that the statute was intended to clarify existing law and to create a new condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of assistanceโnot to create a new substantive right. [21] Bassinger, 163 Wis.2d at 1040, 473 N.W.2d 526. Therefore, in order to determine the substantive rights and what must be done to satisfy the conditions precedent, the parties must look to the relocation assistance statutes that defined a comparable replacement business prior to the legislature's addition of the language in ง 32.05(8) that requires a condemnor to make available a comparable replacement property. [22] ถ 28 We also agree with the court of appeals' analysis regarding the 1991 legislative rearrangement of the language in Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8), [23] when it concluded that [t]he legislative tinkering made no substantive changes to the relevant language of Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8). . . . If anything, the linkage between the `made available' requirement of ง 32.05(8) and the relocation assistance law is strengthened by the 1991 revision. Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ18, 651 N.W.2d 1. In the June 14, 1991 draft of 1991 A.B. 91, the language proposed for ง 32.05(8)(c) stated, the condemnor may not require the persons who occupied the premises on the date title vested in the condemnor to vacate until a comparable replacement property is made available pursuant to s. 32.19. ถ 29 While the parties do not dispute that the relocation assistance law determines the extent to which the condemnor is required to have made available a comparable replacement property, they do disagree over what the law requires by way of a replacement. The City contends that according to Dotty, all that is required in order to meet its obligation to a business tenant is to provide assistance in locating properties, obtaining renovation cost estimates for properties in which the condemnee expresses an interest, and tendering the maximum relocation assistance payments due to a tenant under circumstances where the cost of remodeling or construction would exceed the statutory maximums set out in Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(4m)(b). ถ 30 CC Midwest argues that Dotty is distinguishable because it addressed only the financial component of the condemnor's obligation to have made available a comparable replacement property. We agree with CC Midwest. In Dotty, the court of appeals did not address the identification component of the made available obligation of Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) by considering the definition of a comparable replacement business. CC Midwest also contends that unless a comparable replacement business is identified that it can use, apparently without modification, it has the right to remain indefinitely in possession of the Property after legal title has passed to the City. Stated otherwise, CC Midwest contends that identification has not occurred here because the properties proposed as comparable replacement properties do not meet its interpretation of the statutory definition of a comparable replacement business. Accordingly, we focus on Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) to decide whether any of the properties the City identified satisfy the statutory definition of a comparable replacement business. ถ 31 We begin with the plain language of Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c), interpreted in the context in which it is used and in relation to closely-related statutes. Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ถ46, 681 N.W.2d 110. Section 32.19(2)(c) provides: Comparable replacement business means a replacement business which, when compared with the business premises being acquired by the condemnor, is adequate for the needs of the business, is reasonably similar in all major characteristics, is functionally equivalent with respect to condition, state of repair, land area, building square footage required, access to transportation, utilities and public service, is available on the market, meets all applicable federal, state or local codes required of the particular business being conducted, is within reasonable proximity of the business acquired and is suited for the same type of business conducted by the acquired business at the time of acquisition. ถ 32 CC Midwest and the dissents interpret this definition as commanding a condemnor to satisfy the statute in a temporal way. That is, both presume that Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) requires identification of a property from which CC Midwest could operate its business without modification of the property in any way. The City interprets ง 32.19(2)(c) in relation to other relocation assistance provisions such that identification of a property that after some modification can be used to carry on CC Midwest's business is sufficient to satisfy its obligation to have made available a comparable replacement property pursuant to Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c). Modification of property is not directly addressed in ง 32.19(2)(c). However, both interpretations appear reasonable. Therefore, we conclude that the definition of comparable replacement business is ambiguous. Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ถ 47, 681 N.W.2d 110. ถ 33 Wisconsin Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) sets out a list of criteria to guide the condemnor in its identification of a comparable replacement business. Many of the listed criteria are qualified in a way that shows that in order to satisfy the statute, identification of a property identical to the property that was condemned is not necessary. As examples of such qualifications, we note that a property that is reasonably similar to the major characteristics of the condemned property is sufficient. ง 32.19(2)(c). A property that is adequate for the needs of the business will suffice, and a property that is functionally equivalent in regard to condition, state of repair, land area, building square footage, access to transportation, utilities and public service is all the statute requires. Id. The replacement property should be within reasonable proximity of the condemned property. Id. The other criteria of ง 32.19(2)(c) assure that the type of business for which a replacement business is sought will be able to be conducted from the property suggested without running afoul of governmental regulations. ถ 34 As we consider Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c), we conclude that in some respects, this case is Dotty in a different dress. In Dotty, the condemnee argued that before a writ of assistance could be issued, the condemnor was required to make available a replacement business property that met the condemnee's criteria and could be acquired without expending a sum greater than the total of its condemnation award and relocation benefits. Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ 10, 651 N.W.2d 1. [24] The cost to purchase and remodel the only property deemed worthy of further inquiry was almost $1 million more than the [condemnor had] made available to [the condemnee] in its condemnation award and proposed relocation assistance payments. Id., ถ 4. Relying on Bassinger, the court stated that the condemnor was required to have made available a comparable replacement property to the extent required by the relocation assistance law. Id., ถ 19 (quoting Bassinger, 163 Wis.2d at 1040, 473 N.W.2d 526). [25] The court concluded that the condemnor made available a comparable replacement property to the necessary extent by: identifying potential replacement properties; obtaining renovation cost estimates for properties in which the condemnee expressed an interest; tendering the maximum business replacement payment; and offering to reimburse the condemnee for its other statutorily authorized relocation expenses. Id., ถ 21. ถ 35 The court of appeals expressly rejected the condemnee's argument that implied that the condemnee would never have to vacate the condemned property if the condemnor could not identify a replacement property acceptable to the condemnee that could be acquired for an amount not exceeding the condemnation award plus relocation benefits. Id., ถ 26. The court stated that the condemnee's argument was unreasonable and contrary to the legislative intent regarding the `made available' requirement. Id. The court went on to state, [t]he obligation of the condemning agency under [Wis. Stat.] ง 32.19 is to assist in the procurement and acquisition of replacement property, not to make a displaced business financially whole regardless of the cost to the condemning agency. Id., ถ 27. ถ 36 The court noted that under the relocation assistance law, the legislature expressly provided an exception to the statutory payment limits if a comparable dwelling was not available within the monetary limits. Id., ถ 28 (citing Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(4)(c)). However, no such exception exists when a comparable replacement business is not available. Id. Therefore, the maximum financial obligation of the condemnor to a business remained capped by the statutory limits. Id. In addition, the relocation assistance statutes plainly contemplate that some business-owners will opt not to relocate or ultimately be unsuccessful in doing so. Id., ถ 29 (citing Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(3)(b) and (c); Wis. Admin. Code งง Comm 202.56(4) and 202.58). ถ 37 In addition, a business occupier's right to payment in regard to a replacement business is addressed in Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(4m). As CC Midwest is a tenant-occupier business, it could be entitled to a maximum of $30,000 for a replacement business. ง 32.19(4m)(b). However, any such entitlement is due only if CC Midwest actually rents or purchases a comparable replacement business property within the time limits set out in the statute. Id. Therefore, the definition of comparable replacement business found in ง 32.19(2)(c) applies to both the City's obligation to have made available a comparable replacement property pursuant to Wis. Stat. ง 32.05(8)(b)-(c) and CC Midwest's opportunity for a replacement payment under ง 32.19(4m)(b). ถ 38 CC Midwest contends that none of the properties the City proposed meet the definition of a comparable replacement business set out in Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c). [26] If CC Midwest's statutory interpretation is correct, then under ง 32.19(4m)(b), it would have no right to any payment for a replacement business if it were to purchase or rent one of the properties suggested by the City and later modify that property. This is so because under CC Midwest's interpretation none of the properties would meet the ง 32.19(4m)(b) requirement of being a comparable replacement business. ถ 39 However, Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c), as interpreted in Dotty, implies that a business owner may need to expend sums greater than the condemnation award plus relocation assistance payments in order to obtain a comparable replacement property, if such property is not available absent some modification. Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ 27, 651 N.W.2d 1. This reasonably suggests modification of the property identified. Alternatively, as referenced above, the statutes recognize that some business owners will opt not to relocate or may go out of business. Id., ถ 29. Such alternatives also indicate that a property occupier does not have the right to indefinitely remain in possession of property after an eminent domain acquisition simply because a replacement business is not identified that satisfies the occupier's definition of ง 32.19(2)(c). ถ 40 We conclude that the statutory language shows that relocation assistance provided under Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) does not require identification of a property that is identical to the property condemned or that, at the moment of identification, the property, without modification, can be used by the business that was relocated. See Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถ 21, 651 N.W.2d 1. [27] Rather, it requires identification of a property that with modification can be used for the occupier's business. For example, the land area of a property identified may be sufficient, but the building may have been used for another purpose and may need remodeling in order for the business to carry on its activities as it has in the past. ถ 41 That Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) does not require the identification of a property where no investment is required in order for the business to continue operating also is supported by Wis. Admin. Code ง Comm 202, Relocation Assistance. For example, ง Comm 202.96 addresses Tenant Occupiers who rent the location from which their businesses are conducted. It provides a rental assistance payment of up to $30,000, not only for rental assistance if the rental costs in a new location are higher than those costs were in the premises from which the business was ejected, ง Comm 202.96(a), but also due to payments for modifications to the new premises if those costs are added to the rent, ง Comm 202.96(b)1, or are paid by the tenant, ง Comm 202.96(b)2. ถ 42 As the court of appeals explained in Dotty, a condemnor has no open-ended obligation to provide a replacement property that is acceptable to the business being relocated. Dotty, 257 Wis.2d 377, ถถ 26-27, 651 N.W.2d 1. To conclude otherwise would cause the upper limits on relocation assistance payments to be meaningless. Id. Furthermore, interpreting Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(c) to permit a tenant to remain in a property indefinitely, as though the lease were perpetual, conflicts with the proposition that the complete condemnation of a property terminates the lease. [28] See Wis. Mall Props., LLC v. Younkers, Inc., 2006 WI 95, ถ 27, 293 Wis.2d 573, 717 N.W.2d 703 (concluding that [c]omplete condemnation of a property terminates a lease attached to that property). ถ 43 We also note that Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) is part of a statutory scheme wherein property is taken only for a public purpose. If a comparable replacement business pursuant to ง 32.19(2)(c) were to require a property for which no modification was needed, some business properties condemned for public works projects never would be vacated due to the resources then available in the community. However, ง 32.19(2)(c) requires a business replacement that is only adequate, not one that is identical. Interpreting ง 32.19(2)(c) otherwise, such that it would negate the opportunity to relocate a business if the resources available in a community were not sufficient to provide an identical business property, would prevent public works projects. Such an interpretation would ignore the context in which ง 32.19(2)(c) occurs, contrary to our usual rules of statutory construction. Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ถ 46, 681 N.W.2d 110. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to interpret ง 32.19(2)(c) as requiring the displacing agency to identify a comparable replacement business that at the moment of identification can be used without modification. ถ 44 With this framework in mind, we turn to a comparison of the condemned property with one of those identified by the City. The condemned building had eight cross-docks, four end-doors and approximately 6,000 square feet of space. (Adler Aff. Ex. A at 7-10.) The Property had ten parking spaces and approximately nine acres. ( Id. ) However, only 3.2 acres of the Property was utilized for the building or graded for trucking use. (Boldt Rebuttal Aff. at 1.) ถ 45 The property proposed as a comparable replacement business at 1700 East Delavan Drive, Janesville, was within a couple of miles of the condemned property. (Adler Dep. at 41, Oct. 23, 2003.) It already had more than 20 side-by-side docks for truck loading and unloading, a building with 120,000 square feet of space located on 9.68 acres of property, and more than ten spaces for parking trucks. ( Id. at 42.) The only characteristic it appeared to lack was cross-docks. The City suggested that the long building with the current truck docks would need to be modified to add cross-docks. ( Id. ) CC Midwest offered no reason why cross-docks could not be constructed, and because CC Midwest was not interested in the facility, the City did not pursue the cost of adding cross-docks. ถ 46 It appears from the record before us that the property at 1700 East Delavan Drive is reasonably similar to the condemned property in all its major characteristics and that with the addition of cross-docks to the building, it will be functionally equivalent under Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c). In addition, as a prior trucking facility, there are apparently no governmental regulations that would prevent CC Midwest's trucking operation. Therefore, we conclude that the identified property at 1700 East Delavan Drive is adequate for the needs of CC Midwest's less than truck-load business, and meets the definition set out in ง 32.19(2)(c). [29] ถ 47 CC Midwest refused to consider this property or any of the other properties that the City identified. On October 7, 2002, Thomas Christ, speaking on behalf of CC Midwest, explained that a property would be a suitable replacement only if it had the following attributes: at least 10.5 acres; [30] topography suitable for CC Midwest's building plans; [31] access to roads; M-2 zoning; adjacent to the Union Pacific Rail; [32] and within a two-mile distance from the General Motors plant. [33] While the attributes that CC Midwest requested in a replacement property may be those that are best for CC Midwest's business, they are not necessary to fulfill the statutory parameters of Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c). ถ 48 Similar to the condemnor in Dotty, the City identified potential replacement properties that it has concluded satisfy the statutory requirements and could be modified for CC Midwest's business. The City also has tendered the maximum business replacement payment, and offered to reimburse CC Midwest for other statutorily authorized relocation expenses. [34] CC Midwest does not contest that the City tendered the maximum business replacement payment and offered reimbursement for statutorily authorized relocation expenses. As with the condemnee in Dotty, CC Midwest argues that it cannot be required to vacate the condemned property if a comparable replacement business under its interpretation of Wis. Stat. ง 32.19(2)(c) is not provided. We reject this argument as unreasonable and contrary to the legislative directive. We conclude that the City has complied with its obligations here because one or more of the properties identified could, with modification, be used by CC Midwest to continue its business.