Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall
925 N.W.2d 520
Wis.2019Background
- Whitehall Sand sought to site a sand mine in Town of Lincoln and pursued annexation of ~1,248 acres into City of Whitehall; petition filed Feb 9, 2015 in four phases.
- Petition was labeled "direct annexation by unanimous approval" under Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2) but lacked the signature of one landowner (Fox Valley and Western, LTD).
- City enacted four annexation ordinances in April 2015; Town requested DOA review, which found a contiguity problem (a "balloon-on-a-string" corridor) and advised the Town could challenge in circuit court.
- Town sued for declaratory relief alleging (1) the petition was not unanimous/procedurally defective, (2) lack of contiguity, (3) arbitrariness / violation of the rule of reason, and (4) City was the real controlling influence.
- Circuit court dismissed all claims except contiguity; granted summary judgment to City on contiguity. Court of appeals affirmed. Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is a valid "direct annexation by unanimous approval" under § 66.0217(2) | Petition is not unanimous—missing signature of a property owner—so it does not fall under sub. (2) | Petition labeled sub. (2); but conceded at oral argument petition was not unanimous | Court: Petition is not a unanimous petition under § 66.0217(2); unanimity requires all owners' signatures, and the petition failed that requirement |
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) bars the Town from raising non-contiguity challenges | Town: § 66.0217(11)(c) only limits challenges to annexations that actually satisfy sub. (2); mislabeling cannot strip Town of other challenges | City: Section bars towns from actions contesting validity of annexations under sub. (2), so Town limited to contiguity challenge | Court: § 66.0217(11)(c) applies only to annexations actually under sub. (2). Because the petition was not unanimous, the statutory limitation does not apply and Town may pursue other challenges |
| Whether the annexed territory is contiguous to the City as a matter of law | Town: DOA found contiguity problem; contiguity is at issue and factual | City: Contiguity exists (significant physical contact) and is proper as matter of law | Court: Because the unanimity issue controls, the Court did not reach merits of contiguity; reversed court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the annexation is arbitrary/municipality was the "real controlling influence" | Town: Boundaries are arbitrary, rule of reason violated, City drove the annexation | City: Petitioners were landowners; no evidence City exercised controlling influence; shape unexceptional | Court: Did not decide on merits—allowed Town to litigate these claims on remand because § 66.0217(11)(c) limitation does not apply when petition lacks unanimity |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Lyons v. City of Lake Geneva, 56 Wis. 2d 331 (discusses simplified unanimous annexation procedure)
- Town of Mt. Pleasant v. City of Racine, 24 Wis. 2d 41 (DOA review and annexation legality principles)
- In re Incorporation of Town of Fitchburg, 98 Wis. 2d 635 (labels on documents are not controlling; courts look to substance)
- Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha, 75 Wis. 2d 322 (rule of reason for annexation arbitrariness)
- Town of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha, 58 Wis. 2d 525 (municipal control/"puppeteer" concept in annexation challenges)
- In re Smith, Becker and McCormick Props., 268 Wis. 2d 253 (municipality as "real controlling influence")