CED Properties LLC v. City of Oshkosh
843 N.W.2d 382
Wis.2014Background
- CED Properties owns a corner parcel (parcel 15-1898-1000) at Jackson St. and Murdock Ave. in Oshkosh. The City adopted a single final resolution levying $38,646.66 in special assessments for a Jackson–Murdock intersection improvement, but the accompanying schedules allocated $19,404.93 to Jackson Street and $19,241.73 to Murdock Avenue.
- CED filed a timely notice of appeal and complaint within 90 days; the complaint identified the parcel, referenced the “Jackson Street – Murdock Avenue intersection improvement project,” and listed only $19,241.73 (the Murdock amount).
- The City argued it had actually levied two separate assessments (one per street) and that CED’s complaint only challenged the Murdock assessment, so the Jackson assessment claim was untimely.
- The circuit court granted CED partial summary judgment on the Murdock assessment (based on the City’s concession of procedural defects) but granted the City partial summary judgment as to the Jackson assessment as untimely. The court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether Wisconsin’s notice-pleading rules made CED’s original complaint sufficient to challenge both assessments and whether the rules/statutes governing special-assessment appeals conflict with notice pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CED’s original complaint gave sufficient notice to appeal both special assessments | CED: complaint identified the single parcel and named the Jackson–Murdock project, thus reasonably notifying the City it appealed the total assessment | City: the schedules show two distinct assessments; complaint’s dollar amount matches only Murdock so appeal limited to that amount and Jackson claim is untimely | Held: Complaint gave reasonable and sufficient notice to appeal both assessments; appeal timely |
| Whether Wisconsin’s notice-pleading rules (and relation-back principles) apply to §66.0703 special-assessment appeals | CED: liberal notice pleading governs special proceedings; relation back also available (alternative) | City: special-assessment statute controls; appeal deadlines should be strictly applied to separate assessments | Held: Rules of civil procedure (notice pleading) apply to special-assessment appeals; court resolved case on notice-pleading ground and did not decide relation-back issue |
| Whether the City in fact levied one combined assessment or two separate assessments | CED: argued City’s final resolution language and single parcel indicate one assessment | City: customary practice and schedules show two separate assessments for corner lots | Held: Court agreed the City issued two assessments but nonetheless found the complaint adequate to challenge both |
| Whether summary judgment for CED is appropriate given City's procedural defects | CED: City conceded noncompliance with required engineer’s report/statutory procedures for both assessments | City: conceded procedural defects but maintained untimeliness defense for Jackson assessment | Held: Because CED timely appealed and City conceded procedural noncompliance, summary judgment for CED is appropriate for both assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- Korkow v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 117 Wis. 2d 187 (discusses Wisconsin’s liberal notice-pleading approach and relation-back analysis)
- Anderson v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 85 Wis. 2d 675 (notice pleading sustains complaints that give reasonable notice rather than technical fact pleading)
- Canadian Pac. Ltd. v. Omark-Prentice Hydraulics, Inc., 86 Wis. 2d 369 (Wisconsin courts reject technical pleading gamesmanship; pleadings aimed to secure decisions on the merits)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (formative affirmation of notice-pleading principles cited for procedural approach)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (mentioned regarding evolution of federal pleading standards)