Greenwald Family Limited Partnership v. Village of Mukwonago, 991 N.W.2d 356

The Village of Mukwonago imposed a special assessment that affected at least one Greenwald property; Greenwald sued within the 90-day statutory period under Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(a).
Greenwald filed a summons and complaint and emailed the Village attorney and clerk asking whether the attorney could accept service; the attorney replied and the clerk was removed from subsequent emails.
The Village attorney admitted service on behalf of the Village; Greenwald later emailed and mailed a notice of appeal to the Village attorney but did not serve the clerk directly.
The Village moved to dismiss, arguing § 66.0703(12)(a) requires service on the municipal clerk and Greenwald’s failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction; the circuit court granted the motion and the court of appeals summarily affirmed.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: it held the clerk is not a “party” for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 801.14(2), § 66.0703(12)(a) unambiguously requires service on the clerk, and Greenwald’s failure to serve the clerk required dismissal.
A three-justice dissent argued service on the Village attorney—who accepted service—satisfied the statutes (or at least that statutory provisions and consent permitted treating attorney service as effective), so the case should have proceeded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the municipal clerk is a "party" such that service on the municipality's attorney satisfies Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(a) via § 801.14(2)	Greenwald: clerk is effectively part of the municipal party; serving the Village attorney (who accepted service) satisfied service	Village: clerk is not a party; § 801.14(2) applies only to parties, so serving the clerk is required	Held: clerk is not a party; § 801.14(2) does not apply to obviate the clerk-service requirement
Whether § 66.0703(12)(a) is ambiguous as to what "serve" means and thus should be liberally construed	Greenwald: "serve" is undefined and ambiguous; procedural statutes should favor merits	Village: statute plainly requires serving the clerk; no ambiguity	Held: statute unambiguous—"serve a written notice of appeal upon the clerk" means the clerk must be served
Whether the Village attorney's admission of service and consent to accept electronic delivery satisfied § 66.0703(12)(a)	Greenwald: attorney’s emailed acceptance and admission of service bound the Village and functionally served the clerk/municipality; statutes permit alternative methods and consent	Village: admission of service was on behalf of the Village governing body only and did not satisfy the express clerk-service requirement	Held: attorney's admission did not satisfy the statutory requirement to serve the clerk; failure to serve clerk mandates dismissal

State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (statutory interpretation—plain meaning rule)
Mayek v. Cloverleaf Lakes Sanitary Dist. No. 1, 238 Wis. 2d 261 (2000 WI App 182) (summons and complaint can constitute notice of appeal under predecessor statute)
Outagamie County v. Town of Greenville, 233 Wis. 2d 566 (2000 WI App 65) (procedural practice suggesting serving clerk as means to notify municipality)
Keske v. Square D Co., 58 Wis. 2d 307 (1973) ("apparently in charge" standard for substituted service at an office)
Aiello v. Village of Pleasant Prairie, 206 Wis. 2d 68 (1996) (public policy favoring compliance with procedural statutes to maintain orderly court business)
Belding v. Demoulin, 352 Wis. 2d 359 (2014 WI 8) (principle that a specific statute controls over a conflicting general statute)