956 N.W.2d 837
Wis.2021Background
- DOT sought to condemn 5.87 acres (fee) and 0.198 acres (temporary easement) from Christus Lutheran for State Trunk Highway 15 improvements. DOT provided an initial third‑party appraisal and an offer of $133,400.
- DOT told Christus it could obtain a second appraisal at DOT's expense within 60 days; Christus did not obtain one and refused to sell.
- DOT conducted an internal administrative review, concluded the initial appraisal under‑compensated for severance damages, lost parking, and a required retention pond, and rescinded the initial offer. DOT issued a revised (jurisdictional) offer for $403,200.
- Christus did not accept within the 20‑day period; DOT recorded an award of damages and tendered payment. Christus sued under Wis. Stat. § 32.05(5), claiming the jurisdictional offer was invalid because it was not "based upon" the appraisal and the appraisal did not value "all property proposed to be acquired."
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to DOT; the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld DOT. A three‑justice dissent would have affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jurisdictional offer must be "based upon" the appraisal provided to the owner (Wis. Stat. § 32.05(2)(b), (3)(e)) | Christus: Offer included new line items (severance damages, parking, pond) absent from appraisal, so it was not based on that appraisal. | DOT: The initial appraisal was a foundation for the offer; differences in dollar amounts or added items after negotiation/review do not defeat the statutory requirement. | Supreme Court: "Based upon" means the appraisal need be a supporting part or fundamental ingredient; monetary differences or additions arising from a lawful internal review/negotiation do not invalidate the offer. Reversed court of appeals. |
| Whether the appraisal satisfied the requirement to value "all property proposed to be acquired" (Wis. Stat. § 32.05(2)(a)) | Christus: The appraisal failed to value severance damages and other compensable items, so it did not appraise all property or components of value required to be in the offer. | DOT: "Property" in § 32.05(2)(a) refers to estates/land/fixtures; chapter 32 distinguishes "property" from "damages," and Christus did not identify any discrete property interest omitted from the appraisal. | Supreme Court: Christus did not demonstrate any portion of property (as statutorily defined) was omitted from the appraisal; § 32.05(2)(a) satisfied. |
| Whether DOT was required to obtain a new appraisal substantiating any additional compensation it added after internal review | Christus: DOT must obtain a new appraisal that substantiates and values any compensation items added to the jurisdictional offer. | DOT: Statute does not require a new appraisal; requiring one would be impractical and raise ethics/coercion problems for appraisers. | Supreme Court: Rejected the court of appeals' new rule; no statutory requirement that DOT obtain a fresh appraisal whenever it revises an offer after internal review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Otterstatter v. City of Watertown, 378 Wis. 2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017) (articulated that "based upon" means the appraisal must be a supporting part or fundamental ingredient of the jurisdictional offer)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles and contextual reading of statutes)
- Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, 350 Wis. 2d 242 (Wis. 2013) (jurisdictional defects in condemnation and availability of right‑to‑take challenges)