Claudia B. Bauer v. Wisconsin Energy Corporation, 970 N.W.2d 243

In July 1980 WEC (through predecessor companies) installed a half-inch underground natural-gas line under property owned by Virginia Garside with her written permission to serve a neighboring home.
WEC performed periodic maintenance: records show "relocations" in 1984 and 1989 and an 84-foot splice/replacement in 1988; service to the neighbor continued throughout.
Claudia Bauer bought the property in 1996 without actual knowledge of the buried line; WEC first contacted her in 2014 seeking an easement to upgrade the line.
Bauer refused the easement and sued WEC seeking removal/declaration that no easement existed; WEC counterclaimed under Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2) for a prescriptive right.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for WEC, declaring a prescriptive easement vested before Bauer purchased; Bauer’s motion for reconsideration (including new photos) was denied.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: § 893.28(2) allowed WEC’s prescriptive right to vest by July 1990 and Bauer purchased subject to that vested right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2) abrogates the common-law claim-of-right requirement	Bauer: legislative silence does not clearly abrogate common-law elements	WEC: statute eliminated adversity and therefore claim-of-right as well	Court: statute necessarily abrogated claim-of-right when it removed adversity; held abrogated
Whether § 893.28(2) still requires a visible, open, and notorious use	Bauer: statute did not remove that requirement	WEC: statute removed it (or at least not required)	Court: did not decide; assumed arguendo it still applies but found Garside’s actual knowledge satisfied it
Whether WEC’s repairs/"relocations" interrupted the continuous-use period	Bauer: repairs/ replacements restarted the 10-year vesting period	WEC: splicing and repairs were reasonable maintenance and did not interrupt continuous use	Court: repairs were maintenance, not interruptions; continuous use ran from 1980 and vested by July 1990
Whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying reconsideration and excluding new evidence	Bauer: newly discovered photos and re-review create genuine disputes	WEC: photos were not newly discovered and were immaterial given records showing in-ground inactive piping from splices	Court: denial proper; evidence/arguments could have been presented earlier and would not change outcome

Ludke v. Egan, 87 Wis. 2d 221 (Wis. 1979) (describing traditional common-law prescriptive elements)
Garza v. Am. Transmission Co. LLC, 374 Wis. 2d 555 (Wis. 2017) (maintenance that preserves character of use does not interrupt prescriptive period)
Williams v. Am. Transmission Co., LLC, 306 Wis. 2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (statute permits permissive uses to ripen into prescriptive rights)
Red Star Yeast & Prods. Co. v. Merch. Corp., 4 Wis. 2d 327 (Wis. 1958) (defining interruption/abandonment principles for continuous use)
Kurz v. Miller, 89 Wis. 426 (Wis. 1895) (visible, open, and notorious standard notifies landowner)
Shellow v. Hagen, 9 Wis. 2d 506 (Wis. 1960) (continuity depends on nature and character of claimed right)
Bino v. City of Hurley, 14 Wis. 2d 101 (Wis. 1961) (repairs that do not change character of use do not interrupt prescriptive right)
Borreson v. Yunto, 292 Wis. 2d 231 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for reconsideration: newly discovered evidence or manifest error)