Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac
| Decision Date | 22 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007AP2491.,2007AP2491. |
| Citation | 753 N.W.2d 552,2008 WI App 98 |
| Parties | TOWN OF MERRIMAC, Plaintiff-Appellant,<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> v. VILLAGE OF MERRIMAC, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Natalie T. Bussan of Cross, Jenks, Mercer and Maffei, Baraboo.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Mark R. Sewell and Mindy Rowland Buenger of DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison.
Before DYKMAN, LUNDSTEN and BRIDGE, JJ.
¶ 1 LUNDSTEN J.
The question before us is whether WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) bars a town from contesting in court a particular type of annexation, namely, a direct annexation by unanimous approval under § 66.0217(2). The Village of Merrimac annexed property located in the Town of Merrimac under § 66.0217(2), and the Town brought suit. We agree with the circuit court that § 66.0217(11)(c) bars the Town's suit and that the Town may not obtain review of the annexation by the common law writ of certiorari. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court.1
¶ 2 Property owners in the Town petitioned the Village for a direct annexation by unanimous approval pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(2).2 The Village, in turn, passed an ordinance annexing the property.
¶ 3 The Town filed suit, alleging that the annexation was "void" because the annexed property was not contiguous to the Village. The complaint alleged that, at the closest point, twenty-four feet separate the property from the Village. The Town further alleged that the annexation was void because the Village failed to comply with a requirement in WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(14)(a) that the Village pay the Town a property tax set-off.
¶ 4 The Village moved to dismiss, and the circuit court granted the motion. The Town appealed.
¶ 5 The question before us is whether WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) bars a town from contesting in court a particular type of annexation, namely, a direct annexation by unanimous approval under § 66.0217(2). The interpretation and application of § 66.0217(11)(c) to undisputed facts is a question of law that we review de novo. Hamm v. LIRC, 223 Wis.2d 183, 190, 588 N.W.2d 358 (Ct.App.1998). We interpret statutes using the following method:
[S]tatutory interpretation Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning.
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted).
¶ 6 The statutory provision at issue reads as follows:
No action on any grounds, whether procedural or jurisdictional, to contest the validity of an annexation under sub. (2) [], may be brought by any town.
¶ 7 The Town first focuses on the phrase "contest the validity" in WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c). In the Town's view, asserting that an annexation is void is different than contesting the validity of an annexation. The Town appears to assert that "contesting" whether something is void makes no sense because, when something is void, there is nothing to "contest." We disagree. As this case demonstrates, whether something is void is capable of being disputed and litigated and, therefore, "contested."
¶ 8 The Town also argues that the term "validity" in WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) cannot refer to whether an annexation is void. The Town argues that the legislature is presumed to use terminology consistent with terminology used by the courts and, in State ex rel. City of Madison v. Village of Monona, 11 Wis.2d 93, 104 N.W.2d 158 (1960), prior to the enactment of § 66.0217(11)(c), the supreme court used the term "validity" to refer to whether an annexation is "voidable," but not to whether an annexation is "void."
¶ 9 The Town misreads Village of Monona. Although that case implicates the technical distinction between an annexation ordinance that is "void" at its inception and one that is "voidable," nowhere does the opinion suggest that the term "validity" is limited to being a reference to something that is "voidable." See id. at 95-96, 104 N.W.2d 158.
¶ 10 The Town also points to instances in which the legislature has used both "void" and "invalid" (or "valid") in the same statute. See WIS. STAT. §§ 66.0203(8)(c)3. and 66.0703(10).3 The Town argues that the legislature would not use both words in the same statute if the words did not refer to different situations. We do not agree.
¶ 11 First, our legislature sometimes uses more words than necessary without intending to add meaning. See, e.g., Wood County v. Board of Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ., 60 Wis.2d 606, 614-15, 211 N.W.2d 617 (1973) (). Furthermore, the statutes the Town relies on, at most, demonstrate that "void" and "invalid" do not necessarily have the same meaning. The statutes do not establish that "validity" never refers to whether something is not "void," nor do they establish that the legislature intended a narrow definition of "validity" in the specific context of WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c).
¶ 12 We see nothing in WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) suggesting some special or technical definition for "validity" and, therefore, we look to the common meaning of the word. One dictionary defines "valid" as "having legal strength or force: incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside," and defines "invalid" as "indefensible" or "unjustified." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2529, 1188 (unabr. ed. 1993). Black's Law Dictionary defines "valid" as "[l]egally sufficient; binding" or as "[m]eritorious." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1586 (8th ed. 2004). Black's defines "invalid" as "[n]ot legally binding" or "[w]ithout basis in fact." Id. at 843. See State v. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, ¶ 11, 296 Wis.2d 861, 723 N.W.2d 732 (), review denied, 2007 WI 59, 299 Wis.2d 326, 731 N.W.2d 637 (No. 2005AP2480-CR).
¶ 13 These definitions show that the term "valid" and its opposite, "invalid," are broad terms and that "invalid" generally encompasses the narrower concept of an act that is "void." We conclude, therefore, that under WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) an action to "contest the validity" of an annexation plainly includes actions challenging an annexation as void.
¶ 14 This conclusion is confirmed by the statute's legislative history. See Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ¶ 51, 681 N.W.2d 110 (). The Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis accompanying the substitute amendment that resulted in the addition of paragraph (c) to WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11) states as follows: "Under this substitute amendment, no town may bring an action to challenge on any grounds a direct annexation by unanimous approval." 2003 Wis. Act 317, Legislative Drafting Record, Assembly Substitute Amendment 1, Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau, at 2.
¶ 15 The Town makes an additional argument based on WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(14)(b)1., which provides:
(b) No territory may be annexed by a city or village under this section if no part of the city or village is located in the same county as the territory that is subject to the proposed annexation unless all of the following occur:
1. The town board adopts a resolution approving the proposed annexation.
The Town argues that if § 66.0217(11)(c) is construed to bar towns from pursuing an action to declare an annexation void for failing to comply with § 66.0217(14)(b)1., then a municipality could annex property without regard to any approving resolution by the town, rendering subd. (14)(b)1. meaningless. We disagree. It may be true that, by barring town actions under § 66.0217(11)(c), the legislature has prevented towns from enforcing subd. (14)(b)1. in the case of direct annexations by unanimous approval. But that result does not render subd. (14)(b)1. meaningless. Subdivision (14)(b)1. still applies to annexations other than direct annexations by unanimous approval.
¶ 16 The Town also relies on WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(14)(a)1., which requires that an annexing municipality agree to pay a town a property tax set-off.4 The Town argues that, if towns are prohibited from enforcing subd. (14)(a)1., there is no enforcement mechanism for subd. (14)(a)1. because towns are the only beneficiaries of payments under that subdivision. The Town argues that such a result is absurd, unreasonable, and unworkable. We reject this argument. It may be true that towns may not use the threat of challenging an annexation to compel payments under subd. (14)(a)1., but the Town does not explain why it could not use other means of compelling the Village to pay the property tax set-off it owes the Town.
¶ 17 In the circuit court, the Town argued that, regardless of WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c), it may bring its challenge to the annexation by a common law writ of certiorari. The Town seems to be arguing that it has a right to certiorari review because certiorari review is available whenever statutory review is inadequate or unavailable. The Town cites several cases in support of this argument, but none apply here. The cases the Town relies on address situations where the legislature was silent on the means for review, or where the legislature provided a statutory means of review, albeit one that was more limited than what is available by writ of certiorari. See State v. Goulette, 65 Wis.2d 207, 208, 212-15,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire
...exclude court jurisdiction). The legislature here did not expressly and unequivocally bar judicial review. See Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac , 2008 WI App 98, ¶¶ 6, 17, 312 Wis.2d 754, 753 N.W.2d 552 (holding that a statute prohibiting town from contesting the validity of an annex......
-
Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall
...the validity of a direct annexation by unanimous consent. See 2003 Wis. Act 317, § 3. Thus, in Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac , 2008 WI App 98, 312 Wis. 2d 754, 753 N.W.2d 552, we held that the plain language and legislative history of that version of para. (11)(c) precluded a town......
-
Darboy Joint Sanitary Dist. No. 1 & Town of Harrison v. City of Kaukauna
...And, as the City correctly points out, we have already expressly rejected this argument in Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac, 2008 WI App 98, 312 Wis.2d 754, 753 N.W.2d 552. ¶ 13 In Merrimac, we held that “Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) bars a town from contesting in court a particular t......