Wolff v. Town of Jamestown, 98-2974.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
• Writing for the Court: DEININGER, J.
• Citation: 229 Wis.2d 738,601 N.W.2d 301
• Parties: Clark WOLFF and Linda Wolff, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TOWN OF JAMESTOWN, Appellant, GRANT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Grant County Planning and Zoning Committee, and Grant County, Defendants, and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Intervening Defendant.
• Docket Number: No. 98-2974.,98-2974.
• Decision Date: 22 July 1999

229 Wis.2d 738
601 N.W.2d 301

Clark WOLFF and Linda Wolff, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
TOWN OF JAMESTOWN, Appellant,
GRANT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Grant County Planning and Zoning Committee, and Grant County, Defendants,
and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Intervening Defendant

No. 98-2974.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on briefs April 13, 1999.

Decided July 22, 1999.

229 Wis.2d 740

On behalf of the appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of Richard A. Lehmann and Mark J. Steichen of Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, LLC, Madison

On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Robert L. Sudmeier of Fuerste, Carew, Coyle, Juergens & Sudmeier, P.C., Dubuque, Iowa.

Before Dykman, P.J., Vergeront and Deininger, JJ.

DEININGER, J.

The Town of Jamestown appeals an order denying its motion to intervene in litigation between Grant County and Clark and Linda Wolff, who are landowners seeking to develop property located in the town and the county. The Wolffs sought circuit court review of the Grant County Board of Adjustment's decision to deny them a conditional use permit. We conclude that the Town meets the requirements of § 803.09(1), STATS., and that it is thus entitled to intervene as of right in the Wolffs' action. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order.

BACKGROUND

Under the proper circumstances, Wisconsin's rules of civil procedure permit an outsider with an interest in a lawsuit to intervene and participate as a party to the suit. Section 803.09(1), STATS.,¹ provides that an outsider

229 Wis.2d 741

has a right to intervene when four conditions are met: (1) the potential intervenor makes a timely motion to intervene; (2) the potential intervenor claims an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the suit; (3) the disposition of the suit may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the potential intervenor's ability to protect that interest; and (4) the potential intervenor's interest is not adequately represented by one or more parties to the suit. The issue here is whether the Town meets the requirements of § 803.09(1)

The Wolffs sought to develop for residential use a rugged tract of land overlooking the Mississippi River. The land is located in the Town of Jamestown in Grant County, and it comprises the southwestern tip of Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the land has no direct highway access from Wisconsin, but can be reached only via a circuitous route south into Illinois.

The land is currently zoned A-2, which permits primarily agricultural uses. In order to develop the land as they wish, the Wolffs must obtain a conditional use permit from the County, which has zoning authority over the property by virtue of the Town's approval of the County zoning ordinance. See § 59.69(5)(c), STATS. The Town nevertheless retains substantial responsibility for the well-being of its residents and the property within its boundaries. See ch. 60, STATS. The Town consistently opposed the Wolffs' development proposal on the grounds that it would be difficult to reach the property in order to provide necessary services, such as fire

229 Wis.2d 742

protection, ambulance service, and bus transportation for school children

The Wolffs' application for a conditional use permit was initially approved by the Grant County Planning and Zoning Committee. The Town appealed that approval to the Grant County Board of Adjustment, as it was entitled to do under § 59.694(4), STATS., and the board ultimately denied the Wolffs' application. The Wolffs then filed suit in circuit court, seeking certiorari review of the board of adjustment decision and a writ of mandamus compelling the board to approve the application. The Wolffs also claimed that the denial of their application constituted a taking of their property without compensation, in violation of the state and federal constitutions, and they sought compensation for the taking and damages for the violation of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Town moved to intervene in the Wolffs' suit. The circuit court denied the Town's motion on the grounds that the Town's interests were adequately represented by the County, which was already a party to the suit. The Town appeals the order denying its motion to intervene. The merits of the Wolffs' suit are not at issue in this appeal; the sole issue is whether the Town is entitled by right to participate as a party in the litigation.

ANALYSIS

[1]

Courts have no precise formula for determining whether a potential intervenor meets the requirements of § 803.09(1), STATS., and is thus entitled to intervene in a lawsuit. We evaluate the motion to intervene practically, not technically, with an eye toward "disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned

229 Wis.2d 743

persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process." State ex rel. Bilder v. Township of Delavan, 112 Wis. 2d 539, 548-49, 334 N.W.2d 252, 257 (1983) (quoting Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 700 (D.C. Cir. 1967)).

[2-5]

This practical evaluation must accommodate two potentially conflicting objectives underlying the intervention statute. On one hand, the original parties should be allowed to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit, without having that suit unduly complicated by the addition of intervening parties. On the other hand, judicial efficiency requires that, where possible, related issues should be resolved in a single lawsuit. See Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 548-49, 334 N.W.2d at 257-58. Thus, as we evaluate whether the potential intervenor meets the requirements of the intervention statute, we must examine "the facts and circumstances of this case against the background of the policies underlying the intervention rule." Id. at 549, 334 N.W.2d at 258. The statute governing intervention as of right does not require the potential intervenor to demonstrate that the intervention will not unduly prejudice the rights of the original parties. See Armada Broadcasting, Inc. v. Stirn, 183 Wis. 2d 463, 471 n.2, 516 N.W.2d 357, 359 (1994). We will, however, consider the impact on the original parties as a factor in reaching our decision whether the prospective intervenor has a right to do so. See Bilder, 112 Wis. 2d at 548-49, 334 N.W.2d at 257-58. Whether intervention of right is required in a given case is a question of law subject to our de novo review. See Armada, 183 Wis. 2d at 470, 516 N.W.2d at 359.

In this case, the parties agree that the Town's motion to intervene was timely. The Wolffs contend,

229 Wis.2d 744

however, that the Town fails to meet the other three statutory requirements, and that the Town's intervention would not serve the public...