Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville
| Citation | 225 Wis.2d 759,593 N.W.2d 84 |
| Parties | ETERNALIST FOUNDATION, INC., and Rev. Dr. Reza Rezazadeh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, d v. CITY OF PLATTEVILLE, City Manager Al Probst, City Council Members ( |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Burt P. Natkins of Natkins Law Office of Oregon.
On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Bradley D. Armstrong, Steven A. Brezinski and Rita M. Knauss of Axley Brynelson, LLP of Madison.
Before EICH, VERGERONT and DEININGER, JJ.
The Eternalist Foundation, a religious non-profit corporation, and Rev. Dr. Reza Rezazadeh, one of its founders, appeal a summary judgment granted in favor of the City of Platteville and several city officials. 1 The Foundation sued the City, alleging that the City's zoning decisions violated the Foundation's rights under the federal and state constitutions. The City moved to dismiss the Foundation's complaint. The trial court deemed the City's motion to be one for summary judgment and granted it. The Foundation appeals, contending that: (1) the City's motion to dismiss was untimely; (2) the trial court wrongly treated the City's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment; and (3) its complaint properly alleges constitutional claims for which relief can be granted.
We conclude that the City's motion was timely, and because our review is de novo, any errors the trial court may have committed in applying summary judgment methodology in evaluating the City's motion are of no consequence on appeal. On the basis of our independent review of the Foundation's complaint, we conclude that it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of the City.
The following facts are alleged in the Foundation's amended complaint and are taken as true for purposes of this appeal. Rezazadeh owned a ninety-four-acre parcel of land adjacent to the City of Platteville. The parcel was zoned R-2 under the City's extraterritorial zoning authority, a classification which permitted the development of single- and multi-family housing. The City annexed the ninety-four-acre parcel in May 1978. Rezazadeh agreed to the annexation only because the City had accepted his development plan for the parcel, which included commercial development as well as single- and multi-family housing. A plat reflecting Rezazadeh's plan for the entire ninety-four-acre parcel was approved by the City in November 1978. Sometime after the City's annexation of the parcel, however, the entire ninety-four-acre parcel was rezoned R-1, restricting development principally to single-family housing. Rezazadeh "had no actual or constructive notice" of the City's intent to rezone the parcel, and he learned of the rezoning only after the fact.
After the annexation, Rezazadeh attempted to develop single-family housing on a twenty-one-acre portion of the property. The single-family residential lots did not sell well, and ultimately the bank that had financed Rezazadeh's development foreclosed and acquired those twenty-one acres. In 1980, Rezazadeh donated the remaining seventy-three-acre parcel to the Foundation, intending that the Foundation would sell the parcel to finance its religious mission. The seventy-three-acre parcel would have been worth $650,000 had the City permitted multi-family housing and commercial development on the property. The Foundation has been unable to sell the seventy-three-acre parcel, however. The parcel has been leased as farmland, but has otherwise remained undeveloped.
The City has denied three requests to rezone the seventy-three-acre parcel. In The Foundation also alleges that the City commissioned two comprehensive development plans, one in 1982 and one in 1995, both of which recommended designating more land for multi-family and commercial use. The Foundation further alleges that from 1985 to 1997, the City has denied only one other petition for rezoning in addition to the Foundation's requests. Additionally, the Foundation contends in its complaint that "in fairly close proximity to" the seventy-three-acre parcel "many City lots or large parcels are zoned either R-2 or R-3 and several are immediately adjacent to lots zoned R-1."
1981, the Foundation petitioned the City for rezoning. The City Plan Commission did not endorse the rezoning request, and the Foundation withdrew it. In 1990, the Foundation again petitioned for rezoning. The City Plan Commission recommended approval of the 1990 rezoning petition, but the city council denied it. In 1996, the Foundation received a conditional offer to purchase the parcel, contingent on the parcel's rezoning to include multi-family housing. The prospective purchasers petitioned for rezoning. Again, the plan commission recommended approval, but the city council denied the petition.
After making these factual allegations, the Foundation's complaint pleads claims for violations of its rights under the federal and state constitutions, denominated as follows: "just compensation taking," "due process taking," "substantive due process," "equal protection," "freedom of religion," and "state inverse condemnation." Relief sought by the Foundation includes compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction against enforcement of existing zoning regulations, declaratory relief, and its costs and actual attorneys' fees.
The City's answer to the Foundation's original complaint included affirmative defenses that the Foundation had failed to comply with the notice of claim requirements of § 893.80, STATS., that its claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The City filed a motion to dismiss grounded on these and other defenses, and in response, the Foundation filed an amended complaint. The City then filed a combined motion to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations defense, and answer to the amended complaint, which again pled failure to comply with § 893.80, the statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim as affirmative defenses. The trial court treated the City's dismissal motion as being one for summary judgment, and granted it. The Foundation appeals.
We begin with the Foundation's procedural objections to the trial court's action on the City's motion to dismiss the Foundation's complaint. The Foundation contends that the City's original motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was no longer properly before the court after the Foundation amended its complaint and the City filed its "Motion to Dismiss and Answer to First Amended Complaint." The Foundation cites § 802.06(2), STATS., which provides, in relevant part:
(2) HOW PRESENTED. (a) Every defense, in law or fact to a claim for relief in any pleading shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:
.
6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
.
9. Statute of limitations.
.
(b) A motion making any of the defenses in par. (a)1. to 10. shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted.
The Foundation interprets this language to mean that a defendant may not file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 802.06(2)(a) 6 once the defendant has filed an answer. We reject this interpretation.
We acknowledge that the language of § 802.06(2)(b), STATS., is somewhat confusing if read in isolation. When read in the context of other subsections of § 802.06, however [a] defense of statute of limitations, [and] failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under s. 802.01(1), or by a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or otherwise by motion within the time limits established in the scheduling order under s. 802.10(3).
it becomes apparent that the provisions of § 802.06(2) serve simply to indicate which defenses a defendant may raise prior to, and in lieu of, filing an answer to a complaint. See § 802.06(1), which provides that "service of a motion under sub. (2)" alters the time period for answering a complaint, and that, if a pre-answer defense motion is denied, a defendant generally has ten days from notice of the denial to answer the complaint. Other subsections of the statute, moreover, make clear that a defendant who includes the defenses of failure to state a claim or statute of limitations in an answer does not forfeit the right to bring those defenses on for disposition by motion thereafter. Section 802.06(8)(b) provides, in relevant part, that
Accordingly, we conclude that the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on statute of limitations grounds was properly before the court, despite the City's having previously answered the amended complaint.
The Foundation also contends that the City's initial motion to dismiss, alleging failure to state a claim and other grounds, was superseded by the City's "Motion to Dismiss and Answer to First Amended Complaint," which raised only the statute of limitations defense in the motion portion of the document. The Foundation argues that the latter motion was the "controlling motion," and the court should have considered only the statute of limitation issue. We disagree.
The City's answer to the Foundation's amended complaint restated its numerous defenses in a separate section entitled "Affirmative Defenses." Among these defenses was the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wis. Med. Soc'y Inc v. Morgan, 2009AP728.
...method of inquiry” for determining regulatory takings as the United States Supreme Court); see also Eternalist Found. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d 759, 773, 593 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). ¶ 39 There is no dispute that Secretary Morgan “took” money from the Fund, did so for public use, a......
-
Bettendorf v. St. Croix County
...action must deprive a landowner of “all or substantially all practical uses of the property.” Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d 759, 773, 593 N.W.2d 84 (1999).1 “All or substantially all” sets a high bar for a plaintiff to recover on a takings claim. A regulator......
-
Eberle v. Dane County Bd. of Adjustment
...including farming, its "historical" use. See id. at 372, 380, 548 N.W.2d 528. See also Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d 759, 593 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Ct.App.1999). In this case, unlike Zealy, the plaintiffs' claim is not based on dissatisfaction with the way in which......
-
Alliance Laundry v. Stroh Die Casting
...any errors the trial court may have made in granting its judgment are irrelevant on appeal. Eternalist Found., Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d 759, 769-70, 593 N.W.2d 84 (Ct.App.1999). ¶ 26 Stroh claims that there is no genuine issue. In Stroh's view, the answer is governed by the U......