Darboy Joint Sanitary District No. 1 v. City of Kaukauna
838 N.W.2d 103
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- City of Kaukauna adopted Ordinance No. 1644 annexing ~8 acres (Subject Territory) after a petition signed by the property owners; the territory was in Calumet County and the City in Outagamie County. The Town of Harrison opposed the annexation and formally disapproved it.
- Town and Darboy Joint Sanitary District No. 1 sued the City seeking declaratory relief, alleging the annexation failed to meet statutory requirements (particularly Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(14)(b)1).
- The City moved to dismiss for lack of standing; the Town and Sanitary District moved for summary judgment.
- Circuit court dismissed both plaintiffs for lack of standing (town barred by § 66.0217(11)(c); sanitary district lacked a legally protectable interest) and denied reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: town cannot challenge a § 66.0217(2) unanimous direct annexation under § 66.0217(11)(c); sanitary district falls outside the statutory “zone of interests” and lacks standing under the declaratory-judgment framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Town may sue to challenge a direct annexation under Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2) | Town: § 66.0217(11)(c) does not bar suit unless City proves annexation met § 66.0217(2); City failed because Town Board did not adopt the § 66.0217(14)(b)1 resolution | City: § 66.0217(11)(c) bars any town action to contest annexations under sub. (2) “on any grounds” | Held: Town barred — § 66.0217(11)(c) unambiguously precludes towns from challenging § 66.0217(2) annexations (Merrimac precedent) |
| Whether the Town can invoke other statutes (§§ 66.0233, 60.06, or § 806.04) to circumvent § 66.0217(11)(c) | Town: Those statutes generally grant towns standing or permit declaratory relief | City: § 66.0217(11)(c) is the specific controlling statute and prevents circumvention; declaratory-judgment statute does not create independent standing | Held: Lost — specific bar in § 66.0217(11)(c) controls and § 806.04 does not create standing where statute prohibits suit |
| Whether the Sanitary District has standing to seek declaratory relief against the annexation | Sanitary District: § 60.79(2) and the declaratory-judgment statute permit it to challenge a partial detachment of district territory | City: Sanitary district has no legally protectable interest under ch. 66; § 60.79 does not imply a right to sue; § 806.04 does not create standing absent a protectable interest | Held: Lost — sanitary district lacks a legally protectable interest within the zone of interests of ch. 66 and so has no standing |
| Whether a declaratory-judgment action under § 806.04 can substitute for statutory standing | Plaintiffs: § 806.04 is remedial and permits interested persons to seek declarations when rights are affected | City: § 806.04 does not confer standing independent of statutes creating protectable interests; specific annexation statutes govern | Held: § 806.04 insufficient — plaintiffs must show a legally protectable interest; neither plaintiff met that requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac, 312 Wis. 2d 754 (App. 2008) (§ 66.0217(11)(c) bars towns from contesting direct unanimous annexations under § 66.0217(2))
- Village of Slinger v. City of Hartford, 256 Wis. 2d 859 (App. 2002) (legislature did not extend annexation-challenge standing to abutting landowners; statutory scheme limits who may challenge annexations)
- Chenequa Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 275 Wis. 2d 533 (App. 2004) (elements of a justiciable controversy for declaratory relief)
- Zehner v. Village of Marshall, 288 Wis. 2d 660 (App. 2006) (standing requires injury to an interest within the statute’s zone of interests)
- Willow Creek Ranch v. Town of Shelby, 235 Wis. 2d 409 (2000) (local governments have only powers conferred or necessarily implied by the legislature)
By the Court: Orders affirmed.