Court Opinion

ID: 9684401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:55:56.77988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:55.569493
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 41. (dissenting). A&A Enterprises bought the property in 2002. The circuit court has ordered its building destroyed, and the Majority affirms. I respectfully dissent.
¶ 42. As the Majority concedes, the City of Milwaukee has not complied with Milwaukee, Wis., Ordinance § 218-9.l.a-3, which mandates that "[t]he conditions described in subds. 1 and 2 exist at least 6 months after the order to close or secure the structure has been served upon the owner." (Emphasis added.) The Majority says that that is OK because: (1) A&A Enterprises had constructive notice that a § 218-9.l.a-3 order had been served on a prior owner; and (2) both the City and the circuit court deem the building to be razable. The second reason is, of course, immaterial unless the City has complied with the ordinance. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, the ordinance does not say "after the order to close or secure the structure has been *502served upon a prior owner" — it says "the owner." (Emphasis added.) Governmental bodies must comply with their rules, see Gloudeman v. City of St. Francis, 143 Wis. 2d 780, 785, 422 N.W.2d 864, 866 (Ct. App. 1988), and we may not rewrite those rules to excuse, as the Majority does here, non-compliance, see State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 52, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 667, 681 N.W.2d 110, 126.1

 As for the Majority's passing "public policy" rationale, see Majority, ¶ 24, there is no evidence in the Record that the sale to A&A Enterprises was a sham transaction to permit the prior owner to avoid the effect of the order served on it. Such a sham transaction can be dealt with when and if it is presented in another case; it is not presented here.