Maple Grove Country Club Inc. v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District
926 N.W.2d 184
Wis.2019Background
- Maple Grove Country Club (Country Club) built and formerly operated a sewer system later operated by Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District (Sanitary District) under successive leases that expired in 2009; the District continued occupying and operating the system without paying rent after 2010.
- On July 19, 2011 the Country Club served a “Notice of Circumstances of Claim” under Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d)(a) alleging occupation without just compensation; it stated no damages claim was made “at this time.”
- In 2014 the Country Club sued the Sanitary District seeking inverse condemnation and related relief, alleging it had given the requisite notice under § 893.80; the District answered and asserted several affirmative defenses but did not affirmatively plead failure to comply with § 893.80.
- At summary judgment the Sanitary District first argued the Country Club’s notice was untimely and lacked an itemized statement required by § 893.80(1d)(b); the circuit court dismissed the inverse condemnation claim for failure to comply and did not rule on waiver.
- The court of appeals affirmed, relying on Lentz v. Young to hold a defendant may raise an affirmative defense by motion, even if not pleaded; the Country Club petitioned to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held the notice-of-claim noncompliance is an affirmative defense that must be affirmatively pleaded under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.02(3) and 802.06(2), and because the District failed to plead it (and did not timely amend), the defense was waived; the court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncompliance with Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d) is an affirmative defense or a jurisdictional prerequisite | Country Club: § 893.80(1d) noncompliance is an affirmative defense that must be pled | Sanitary Dist.: noncompliance is jurisdictional and not waived if unpled | Held: It is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite |
| Whether the Sanitary District waived the § 893.80(1d) defense by not pleading it | Country Club: failure to plead affirmative defense waives it | Sanitary Dist.: may raise defense by motion (per Lentz) or at summary judgment | Held: Defense must be pleaded in a responsive pleading (per §§ 802.02(3), 802.06(2)); failure to plead waived the defense |
| Whether Lentz v. Young permits raising unpled affirmative defenses by motion | Country Club: Lentz misread Robinson and conflicts with statutes; should be overruled | Sanitary Dist.: Lentz controls and allows raising defense on motion | Held: Overrules Lentz to the extent it allows initially raising non‑enumerated affirmative defenses by motion; Lentz was misinterpretation |
| Whether court needed to reach substantive compliance with § 893.80(1d) after waiver ruling | Country Club: substantive compliance exists (actual notice/no prejudice) | Sanitary Dist.: challenged timeliness and lack of itemization | Held: Court did not decide substantive compliance because defense was waived; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lentz v. Young, 195 Wis. 2d 457 (Ct. App. 1995) (court of appeals decision allowing affirmative defenses to be raised by motion—partially overruled here)
- Mannino v. Davenport, 99 Wis. 2d 602 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (lack of notice under a different statute was treated as nonwaivable defense)
- Rabe v. Outagamie County, 72 Wis. 2d 492 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (notice statute is condition of liability, not of pleading)
- Weiss v. City of Milwaukee, 79 Wis. 2d 213 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (lack of compliance with notice statute is a defense that must be pled)
- Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 235 Wis. 2d 610 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (governmental entity must affirmatively plead noncompliance)
- Robinson v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 137 Wis. 2d 1 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (discussion limited to statute-of-limitations defense)
- Anderson v. City of Milwaukee, 208 Wis. 2d 18 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (distinguishing a damages-cap provision from pleading-waiver rules)
- Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (court of appeals bound by its prior decisions; permits signaling disfavor)