Ramme v. City of Madison
Decision Date | 28 November 1967 |
Citation | 37 Wis.2d 102,154 N.W.2d 296 |
Parties | Howard RAMME, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MADISON, a municipal corporation et al., Respondents. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Tilg & Koch, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Edwin C. Conrad, City Atty., Bruce K. Kaufmann, Asst. City Atty., Madison, for respondent City.
The issues on this appeal are two:
1. Does appellant have standing to attack the constitutionality of the statute?
2. Does the statute afford the landowner a type of review not available to others liable for the tax thereby constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws?
The pertinent statutory provisions are as follows:
'66.058 Mobile home parks. (1) Definitions. * * *
'(a) 'Licensee' means any person licensed to operate and maintain a mobile home park under this section.
'(b) * * *
'(c) 'Park' means mobile home park.
'(d) * * *
'(e) 'Mobile home' is that which is, or was as originally constructed, designed to be transported by any motor vehicle upon a public highway and designed, equipped and used primarily for sleeping, eating and living quarters, or is intended to be so used; and includes any additions, attachments, annexes, foundations and appurtenances, except that a house trailer is not deemed a mobile home if the assessable value of such additions, attachments, annexes, foundations and appurtenances equals or exceeds 50 per cent of the assessable value of the house trailer.
'* * *
'(i) 'Mobile home park' means any plot or plots of ground upon which 2 or more units, occupied for dwelling or sleeping purposes are located, regardless of whether or not a charge is made for such accommodation.
'* * *
'(3) License and permit fees; court review. * * *
'(d) Each city, town or village shall make preliminary determination of the amount of the per mobile home parking permit fee to be levied against a mobile home park, and shall give notice of hearing on said proposed parking permit fee to be held in the hall of the city, town or village where any interested person shall have an opportunity to be heard.
'3. * * *
'(c) If a mobile home is permitted by local ordinance to be located outside a licensed park, the monthly parking permit fee shall be paid by the owner of the mobile home, the occupant thereof or the owner of the land on which it stands, the same as and in the manner provided for licensees, provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall prohibit the regulation thereof by local ordinance.
(This subsection passed subsequent to commencement of the action.)
Does appellant have 'standing' to attack the constitutionality of the statute?
Respondent, City of Madison, argues that the appellant does not have 'standing' to challenge the constitutionality of the statute in question. Summarily, respondent's argument is that the fee is an excise tax levied against the landowner, not the trailer occupant; that the statute merely permits the tax to be passed on to the occupant and the city has no method of enforcing collection from the occupant; that, therefore, the trailer occupant is in exactly the same position as users of services or products subject to ordinary excise taxes in that these taxes are too remote, indirect, and incidental to allow them to challenge the validity of the tax. Since the city cannot collect the tax from the occupant, respondent argues, the occupant has no right which need be protected.
It is true the fee constitutes an 'excise tax on the parking of occupied trailers and not a tax upon them as property.' Barnes v. City of West Allis (1957), 275 Wis. 31, 37, 81 N.W.2d 75, 79. Further, subs. (c) and (d) of sec. 66.058(3), Stats., indicate that the fee is being levied against the mobile home park:
'(c) * * * The amount of such parking permit fee that may be levied against each mobile home park shall be determined after a public hearing as hereinafter provided. * * *'
'* * *
'(d) Each city, town or village shall make preliminary determination of the amount of the per mobile home parking permit fee to be levied against a mobile home park, * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
The definition of 'Mobile home park' is in sec. 66.058(1)(i), Stats.:
"Mobile home park' means any plot or plots of ground upon which 2 or more units * * * are located, * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
However, while the tax is stated to be 'levied' against the mobile home park, the trailer occupants are also an object of the tax. Sec. 66.058(3)(c), Stats., states that the licensee of the park is required 1 to collect the fee from each occupied mobile home. Further, sub. (3)(c)(1) provides:
'The licensee of a park shall be liable for the monthly parking permit fee for any mobile home occupying space therein as well as the owner and occupant thereof.' (Emphasis supplied.)
From this section the 'licensee' is also an object of the tax. It is somewhat difficult to tell exactly who is the sole object of the tax imposed by the section. The section, however, is clearly an attempt to have trailer occupants and owners pay their fair share of the costs of municipal and school services furnished in exchange for a property tax exemption. Since the tax is to be 'collected' from the occupants of the mobile homes, and since they are 'liable' for the tax, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Popenhagen
...112 Wis.2d 224, 228, 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983)). 13. Vill. of Slinger, 256 Wis.2d 859, ¶ 9, 650 N.W.2d 81 (citing Ramme v. City of Madison, 37 Wis.2d 102, 116, 154 N.W.2d 296 (1967)). 14. Bence v. City of Milwaukee, 107 Wis.2d 469, 478, 320 N.W.2d 199 15. Bill Drafting File on 1979 S.B. 221, av......
-
Foley–ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condo. Ass'n Inc.
...Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 69 Wis.2d 1, 13, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975), and Ramme v. Madison, 37 Wis.2d 102, 116, 154 N.W.2d 296 (1967). Forecki v. Kohlberg, 237 Wis. 67, 75–76, 295 N.W. 7 (1940). Id. at 75, 295 N.W. 7. Id. Id. at 76, 295 N.W. 7. In Mat......
-
Outagamie County v. Smith
...and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.' We said in the recent case, Ramme v. City of Madison (1967), 37 Wis.2d 102, 114, 154 N.W.2d 296, 302, 'The entire act is framed in broad terms. Liberal inclusion is specifically contemplated.' While we do not con......
-
State ex rel. Sundby v. Adamany
...and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.' We said in the recent case, Ramme v. Madison (1967), 37 Wis.2d 102, 114, 154 N.W.2d 296, 302, 'The entire act is framed in broad terms. Liberal inclusion is specifically contemplated.' . . .' Therefore, under the......