864 N.W.2d 114
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- Somers USA bought ~46.646 acres abutting I-94 in 2007; State planned to take two parcels for a frontage road (9.464 acres) and an on‑ramp (2.996 acres).
- Somers engaged Excel Engineering to prepare a certified survey map (CSM). Drafts labeled both parcels as reservations; the recorded CSM labeled the 2.996‑acre parcel a “road reservation” and the 9.464‑acre parcel a “road dedication.”
- Somers never intended to dedicate land; no municipal or county board approved any dedication and no statutory dedication procedure was followed.
- The State built the frontage road and on‑ramp, relying on the CSM language, and did not pay Somers compensation; Somers sued for inverse condemnation/just compensation.
- The trial court found the State took both parcels without right to do so and approved a settlement/stipulation requiring the State to pay $500,000 plus fees and interest; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Somers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recorded CSM "dedication" conveyed fee simple title without compensation | The CSM did not effect a valid dedication because Somers never intended to dedicate and statutory dedication procedures were not followed | A recorded dedication under Wis. Stat. §236.29(1) vests fee simple when marked on a recorded plat/CSM, so State may occupy without paying | No — dedication invalid: lack of required approvals and intent means CSM did not convey title; compensation required |
| Whether the State may rely on a known material mistake in the CSM to avoid paying compensation | Somers: State cannot take property based on a known scrivener's error and then claim title | State: Equitable estoppel or reliance on the recorded CSM permits it to keep and use the land without paying | No — government cannot rely on a known, material mistake; equitable estoppel not established |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents Somers from seeking compensation | Somers: No inducement or reasonable reliance; estoppel requires clear, convincing proof | State: Somers’ signing and recording the CSM induced reasonable reliance by the State to its detriment | Denied — State failed to show clear, satisfactory, convincing evidence of reasonable reliance or detriment |
| Whether statutory requirements for plat/CSM dedication were satisfied | Somers: Statutory scheme (e.g., §236.34) requires owners’ certificates and board approval for dedication — none occurred | State: Recording the CSM with the dedication notation was sufficient under §236.29(1) to vest title | Denied — statutory dedication procedure not followed, so §236.29(1) does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoepker v. City of Madison Plan Comm'n, 209 Wis. 2d 633 (1997) (distinguishes dedication, which conveys land, from reservation, which does not)
- Brenner v. New Richmond Reg'l Airport Comm'n, 343 Wis. 2d 320 (2012) (takings analysis and standard of review; government must provide compensation when it takes property)
- Vande Zande v. Town of Marquette, 314 Wis. 2d 143 (2008) (statutory dedication requires compliance with prescribed procedures)
- State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 353 Wis. 2d 307 (2014) (elements and burden for equitable estoppel against government)
- Nugent v. Slaght, 249 Wis. 2d 220 (2001) (standard of review for estoppel and circuit court discretion)
- Gonzalez v. Teskey, 160 Wis. 2d 1 (1990) (proof for estoppel must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing)
By the Court: affirmed — the CSM did not convey title by dedication, and the State must pay just compensation.