All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

All Star Rent A Car, Inc.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. Dеpartment Transportation Wisconsin Hearings Appeals, Wisconsin Division of Respondents-Respondents-Petitioners.

Supreme Court argument No. 2003AP2668. Oral September July Decided 2006 WI 85 (Also 506.) reported 716 N.W.2d J., dissents. Roggensack, (cid:127) Jr., J., joins.

ButleR, respondents-respondents-petitioners, For the argued by III, F. Creeron assistant cause Thomas was Peggy attorney general, on the briefs was A. with whom Lautenschlager, attorney general. petitioner-appellant there was a brief

For the Legal Group, S.C., Services Richard J. Ward and RJW argument by J. oral Richard Ward. Madison, and PROSSER, J. 1. DAVID T. This case involves Star) (All A name Car, Inc.'s failure to and All Star Rent (DHA) Hearings Appeals and as serve the Division of sought respondent when All Star review of DHA's The court All decision in circuit court. circuit dismissed grounds comply on All that Star failed to Star's appeals 227.53.1The court of reversed with Wis. Stat. published in a concluded that the decision2 because it ambiguous and, result, All relevant statutes were naming serving Department action Star's (DOT), Transportation Hearings but not the Division of (DHA), Appeals was reasonable under the circum- agree appeals with the court of that the stances. We ambiguous. recognize relevant are We also statutes 1All references to Wisconsin Statutes are otherwise noted. 2003-04 version unless 2 Car, Inc. Dep't Transp., Star Rent A v. Wis. WI Wis. 2d 688 N.W.2d681. App required All Star was to serve DOT as a under 227.53(l)(c). Nevertheless, we conclude that All Star's failure follow the instructions rights appended "Notice" of review to DHA's written All decision—instructions that directed Star to name respondent DHA fusing a notice that clarified the con- Consequently, statutes —was not reasonable. reverse.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2. The DOT motor vehicle licenses dealers §§ Wisconsin. pur-

All Star ais licensed motor vehicle dealer that damaged making chases cars and sells them after repairs. In 2002 All Star's dealer license was scheduled expire September to on 30. of Because consumer com- plaints statutory and other violations, evidence of complaint a DOT filed with DHA to revoke All complaint July Star's 17, license. The was dated August looking September 30, 3. On ahead to its expiration, applied All 30 license Star for renewal of its By September license. 4, 2002, letter dated DOT denied application. September responded On 25 All Star to by filing request hearing denial this a with DHA for a to review the denial. proceed-

¶ 4. The DHA combined revocation (TR-02-0030) (TR- ing proceeding and the nonrenewal 02-0044) hearing a 8, contested on case November Judge 2002, before J. Administrative Law Mark Kaiser (ALJ). proposed 13, March On issued ALJ proposed decision. The decision found that had proved against alleged of the three had two violations it proposed Star, All All and the order revoked Star's license and affirmed DOT'S nonrenewal license. from the parties, comments receiving 5. After Schwarz, DHA, issued a of David

the Administrator Decision, In the Final on May Final Decision of and asserted fact findings the Administrator made Order af- of law. The Administrator's 6 conclusions All renewal and Star's license firmed DOT's denial All license.3 motor vehicle revoked Star's Decision to DHA's Final was No- 6. Attached review the decision.4 right tice of Star's to in bold type The Notice —headed —stated: Set below is a list of alternative methods out may to obtain review of persons to who wish available This notice the attached decision Division. § 227.48 compliance insure provided to rights any proceeding this sets out rehearing and administrative or petition for review an adverse decision. .of

3 All two DHA ordered Star's license revoked for reasons. damage First, DHA that All had a car with to its found Star sold buyer, in to the violation of Wis. supplying frame without notice 218.0116(l)(gm) interpreted by § Admin. Code Stat. as 139.04(4) (6). Second, All § and DHA found that Star had Trans by DOT, produce in violation requested refused to records when of § Wis. Stat. 227.48(2) § DHA this requires append Wisconsin Stat. to 227.48(2) "Each part, to its In states: decision notice decisions. any right parties petition include of to for shall notice of rehearing judicial and administrative or review adverse decisions, filing petition for each and identifi the time allowed as respondent." cation of the to named legislature the in The enacted text of Wis. Stat. 378, 1981, Sunnyview Village, response of Inc. v. ch. Laws Administration, 396, 2d 311 N.W.2d632 Department of (1981). Any person aggrieved by the decision attached adversely affects the substantial interests of person by inaction, such action or or nega- аffirmative judicial tive form is entitled to by filing review petition provisions [therefor] accordance with the §§ Wis. Stat. 227.52 and 227.53. petition Said must be (30) thirty filed within days after service of the sought decision to he rehearing reviewed. If a is re- (1) quested paragraph noted in [setting forth the procedure for requesting rehearing before DHA] above, any party seeking judicial shall review serve and (30) file a petition thirty for days review within after disposing service of order rehearing applica- (30) thirty tion or days within after final disposition by operation Any petition judicial law. review shall name the Hearings Appeals Division as the respondent. desiring Persons to file for closely are advised to provisions examine all of Wis. §§ 227.52 and 227.53 to compliance insure strict added.) requirements. with all its (Emphasis 26, 2003, May On petitioned Star Dane County Circuit Court for review of DHA's pursuant 227.52. In its petition, All Star named DOT as respondent served and the upon Attorney General. All Star not did name or DHA. serve On May 29, 2003, circuit court held a on All hearing stay Star's motion to effect of DHA's order. On June the circuit court held a second on All hearing stay Star's request. Present at both hearings attorneys were for DOT and Attorney the General. the circuit Ultimately, court granted All Star's request for stay. 8. 16,2003, On June more All days than 30 after

¶ Star the May decision, received 15 and All days 20 after Star DOT judicial review, served with its for petition DOT filed a notice of and appearance a motion to

623 circuit court lacked personal DOT claimed the dismiss.5 jurisdiction.6 subject over DHA and matter jurisdiction peti- and dismissed Star's agreed court The circuit DHA as name and serve All Star failed to tion because re- was the court concluded the respondent, 227.53(l)(b). The circuit court § Wis. Stat. quired (1) clearly 227.53 re- §§ 227.52 and held: Wis. Stat. (2) All decision "to DHA; and Star's service quired upon deciding unrelated to the a party entirely serve logical. reasonable nor was neither 'agency[,]'" court of appeals 9. All and the appealed, Star of concluded that Wis. Stat. The court appeals reversed. adminis in "which prescribing § 227.53 ambiguous is ...." All All Star was to serve entity required trative WI App A Car v. 2004 Dep't Transp., Rent Wis. Star of 2d 198, 1, 793, 276 688 N.W.2d found two The court of sources appeals 227.53(l)(b) First, requires Wis. Stat. ambiguity. in "the name of the whose to be entitled petition 5 (1) parties days significant all The number of because: necessary judicial an decision must to review of administrative decision, days agency's 30 be served within (2) 227.53(l)(a)2.; parties participate who desire to and petitioner, days within 20 upon review must serve review, receiving appearance for a notice of allegation party's position that sets on each material forth petition. in the 6 filing dismiss, to DOT its motion we Subsequent Mikrut, Trempealeau v. Village decided which we discussed (the jurisdiction ability subject competency matter court's 8-9, jurisdiction). WI subject ¶¶ to exercise its matter correctly DHA Wis. 2d 681 N.W.2d 190. acknowledged their brief to this court that second basis challenge actually their motion was to dismiss Accordingly, will refer to this competency. circuit court's court. competency for dismissal as the of the circuit basis decision is to be sought reviewed as respondent... added.) 227.01(1) § (Emphasis Wisconsin Stat. defines an "agency" as "the land board, Wisconsin council or a commission, committee, or officer in department state government, except governor, a district attor- DELA, or a ney or military judicial officer." is a "division" (DOA). of the Department of Administration 218.0101(9). A "division" does not fit within the defi- nition of in § agency Therefore, the court of concluded, § appeals 227.53 does not clearly require DHA to be named and served as the respondent. Car, Star Rent A 793, 276 Wis. 2d 11. ¶ 227.46(2m) Second, 11. ¶ "The states: the administrator of the division of hearings is a appeals final decision of the subject to judicial review under s. 227.52." The court of appeals concluded that a reasonable reading this statute is that "the DELAadministrator's decision becomes the final Car, decision of the DOT." All Star Rent A 2dWis. Thus, the court of appeals ¶ concluded the 227.46(2m) interaction §§ between Wis. Stat. 227.53 and rendered the former unclear as to whom must named Id. and served respondent. 12. We the DOT and granted DHA's

¶ review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 13. Whether Wis. Stat. clearly pre scribes which must be named and served as the respondent requires statutory interpretation. Statutory is a interpretation question of law we review de novo. Tucker, State v. WI 46, 697, 703, 694 N.W.2d 926. to name Likewise, whether All Star's failure under the circum DHA was reasonable

and serve underlying question facts law, a since the stances dispute. v. Mc in ex rel. Coleman are not Caughtry, See State ¶ 352, 2d 49, 17, 290 Wis. 714

2006 WI 900. N.W.2d Finally, generally

¶ determinations waiver 15. questions present v. of fact and law. See Reckner mixed (Ct. App. Reckner, 425, 435, 159 2d 314 N.W.2d Wis. 1981). undisputed, however, the the facts are Where objection question to DOT waived its of whether competence question law court is a of the circuit Rogers Hosp., Mem'l de novo. Johnson v. 31, 283 Wis. 2d 700 N.W.2d27. WI

III. DISCUSSION requires to consider This case the court 16. questions: three clearly § forth 227.53 set which

1. Does Wis. Stat. respondent on the must be named and served as of this case? facts clearly If forth § 227.53 does not set served, named and was All Star's action must be naming serving only DOT and reasonable? objection "competency" Did its to the DOT waive by hear- participating

of the circuit court two court ings? parties' turn 17. Before we to merits licensing proce-

dispute, briefly we will describe DOT'S licensing decisions, and dure, review of DOT relationship of DHA to DOT. charged issuing supervis- ¶ 18. DOT is ing § motor dealer vehicle licensеs. Wis. Stat. 218.0111. authority deny application DOT has the an for a including application. license, a renewal Stat. 218.0116(2). § applicant anIf wishes to contest DOT's decision, denial it must DHA for review. Wis. therefore, Stat. DHA, is the final application decision-maker toas whether a license will granted. be authority

¶ 19. DHA's is even clearer a license authority suspend revocation. DOT lacks or revoke hearing. motor vehicle dealer license without 218.0116(4)(a). ‍‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‍may initiate license revo- proceedings, cation but these matters "shall heard hearings appeals." and decided division 218.0116(4)(c). license-application Thus, 20. for both denials and license DHA final revocations is the decision- §§ 227.43(l)(bg) (requiring maker. See Wis. Stat. DHA assign hearing preside administrator to a examiner to proceedings concerning over the nonrenewal and revo licenses) 227.46(2m) of cation motor vehicle dealer and ("The decision the of administrator of the of division hearings appeals agency and is final decision of the judicial review."); subject Harley- see also Racine Hеarings Davidson, Inc. v. State Wis. Div. & of of Appeals, ¶¶ 24-25, 2006 WI "[a]ny person ag Thereafter, N.W.2d 184. in interest grieved by hearings of decision the division and appeals may pro ... have a review the decision as § vided in ch. 227." Stat. Any person

¶ 21. substantial are whose interests adversely may affected an administrative decision judicial § obtain 227.52. review. Wis. Stat. Wisconsin an aggrieved § the procedures Stat. 227.53 prescribes review. Among must follow to obtain person following: are the these requirements petition The must person 1. (Wis. agency of the decision days

within 30 service 227.53(l)(a)2.); § Stat. in person petition The shall entitle the the name serving petition petitioner as "and person sought agency decision is to be

name of whose (Wis. 227.53(l)(b)); § and respondent" Stat. reviewed person copy The of the must serve a sought re- upon the whose decision (Wis. 227.53(l)(a)l.) "upon and each viewed Stat. proceeding appeared before the in the who sought made to be reviewed was attorney party's or of record." Wis. Stat. upon 227.53(l)(c). provisions clearly designate At issue is whether these respon- that must be named served as entity dent.

A. Is Stat. 227.53 Ambiguous? Wisconsin case on the dispute 22. The this centers "the meaning phrase agency" 227.53(l)(a)l. 227.53(l)(b): §§

(a)l. Proceedings for shall be instituted serving petition... upon agency or one of its sought .... If the is officials whose decision ... . reviewed is (b) petition ... The in the name of shall be entitled serving it person petitioner as the name

628 sought whose decision is to be reviewed as added.)7 respondent.... (Emphasis phrase agency" appears ¶ 23. The "the times in 10 Star in contends that this agency" case DOT; "the means DOT contends that "the agency" competing interpre- means DHA. Given these tations, we must determine whether is ambiguous. ambiguous

¶ merely A24. is statute not because parties disagree meaning. about its Preston v. Hosp., Inc., Meriter 122, 20, 2005 WI 284 2d 264, Wis. ambiguous 700 158. A N.W.2d statute is if reasonable persons interpretations could reach different about its Keup meaning. DHFS, ¶16, v. 2004 17, WI Wis. 2d 269 (citing Delaney, 59, 675 N.W.2d755 9, State v. 2003 WI 416). ¶ 14, 77, Wis. 2d 259 658 N.W.2d test The ambiguity language is whether the of the statute rea gives sonably meanings, rise to different so well that persons informed should have become Bruno confused. County, v. 28, 21, Milwaukee 2003 WI 633, 660 N.W.2d656. aрpears may A clear statute on face its ambiguous by

be rendered its interaction other Group DWD, ¶70, statutes. Aurora Med. v. 2000 WI McDonough DWD, 2d 612 646; N.W.2d v. 7 In particular, parties' dispute meaning centers on the 227.53(l)(b), agency" "the which states relevant "The shall part: be entitled the name of the person serving it petitioner and the name the agency whose sought respondent...." (Emphasis be reviewed as added.) (1999). potential 278, This 271, 2d 595 N.W.2d686

Wis. dispute present ambiguity in the the of drives source case. argues

¶ Stat. 26. All Star that when Wis. 227.53(1) § of Stat. read in the context Wis. is 227.46(2m), 227.48(2), 227.01(1), §§ that and it clear is 227.53(1) Conversely, § agency DOT. in is referred to 227.53(1) § argues in read context when is 227.47(1), 218.0116,227.46(2m), §§ and it is of Wis. Stat. 227.53(1) § to DHA. clear that refers reviewing interplay ¶ all these 27. After statutory statutes, directive as to which we believe entity government is am- must be named served biguous case. in this First, consider Stat. 28. we whether Wis. 227.53(1) reasonably interpreted suggest or can be

require respondent. If as DOT to be named served analysis our and the circuit court's cannot, it then ends dismissal must he affirmed. agency interpreting phrase, "the In sought begin reviewed[,]" is to he

whose decision considering "agency." hоw ch. 227 defines Throughout Chapter means "the Wisconsin depart- committee, board, commission, land council or a government, except ment or the state officer attorney military governor, or a district or 227.01(1). Notably this officer." absent from any definition of mention of a "division." division, Because DHA is a reasons that the Star agency" "the can- references Wis. Stat. require respon- DHA to not be named and served agreed. appeals dent. The court litigated An identical was almost issue ago years Sunnyview Village, Department Inc. v. (1981). Administration, 2d 311 N.W.2d632 Sunnyview nursing had to name and The home failed Nursing Appeals Home Forfeiture serve the Division (DNHFA) Department Administration, located of the arguably required by to do Stat. as it was then-Wis. 227.16(1) § (1979-80), predecessor to the 227.53(1). opinion § court, The in an then-Justice "sec. remains com Abrahamson, observed that 227.16 only plex confusing read in a and not when becomes conjunction cursory read in with fashion but also when 227.01(1) agency." Id. at 400. At sec. which defines § "agency" not definition had been time, the of 227.01 restructuring of execu amended to refleсt the 1967 principal branch, subunit tive which made "divisions"the department. Id. & n.4. of a at 400-02 changed, That has still definition not been unwary something a for the serves as of snare and it still Accordingly, litigant. of conclude that the definition we 227.01(1) reasonably § agency can be inter- in Wis. Stat. preted Thus, a failure to to exclude division. All Star's respondent might under- and DHA the name serve as only guidance. if it had for standable the statutes naming mean, however, that 32. This does not only serving respondent a reasonable DOT as was and 227.53(1). § Despite interpretation simi- its Wis. Stat. Sunnyview Village not control the outcome larities, does Village nursing Sunnyview home did case. In this respondent. It named name and serve DNHFA not depart- respondent. Id. DOA as Because and served clearly agency, was a an and because DNHFA ment is serving DOA, or subunit of held that division naming respondent petition upon DOA it as was interpretation predecessor reasonable § Id. at 412. petitioner Sunnyview Village,

¶ 33. Unlike the All Star did not DOA, name and serve of which DHA is agency a subunit. All Star named DOT, and served an although interplay Thus, unrelated to DHA. § arguably produces definition of with 227.53 ambiguity regard ambiguity to divisions, this justify naming serving not sufficient to respondent. DOT as the Only ¶ 34. after one considers interaction of 227.46(2m) with Wis. Stat. does ambiguity sufficient arise to rationalize All Star's deci- respondent. sion to name and serve DOT as the Section 227.46(2m) states: "The decision of the administrator of [DHA] subject is a final decision of the department review under s. 227.52. The transportation may petition review."All Star 227.46(2m) interprets imputing as the decision of though adopted DHA DOT, to as the decision as its appeals apparently agreed, own.8 The court of conclud- ing reasonably it "could be read to mean that the DHA administrator's decision becomes the final decision of Car, the DOT."All ¶ Star Rent A 793, 227.46(2m) agree § reading ¶ 35. We that this 227.46(2m) § appear all, reasonable. After would redun- dant if it means that the decision of the administrator Accordingly, of DHA ais final decision of DHA. interpreted conclude that All Star could have 227.53(l)(b) § require respondent. to it to name DOT as

¶ 36. All Star draws our attention to an additional problem. § 227.48(2), Wisconsin Stat. the statute that DNR, Unlike the automatically which adopts DHA deci review, sions if it does not seek there is no comparable statutory provision by which DOT adopts a DHA decision. See Hilton v. DNR, 2006 WI 2d _ ¶ _, N.W.2d 166 227.46(3)(a)). (discussing § Wis. Stat. an to notice of requires agency provide judicial review to an rights aggrieved party, provides part:

2. Each decision any right shall include notice of parties rehearing for petition and administrative judicial decisions, or review of adverse the time allowed filing for each petition party identification of respondent. be named as time period specified No un- 227.53(l)(a) der filing ... s. a for any review or under other section permitting adminis- an agency begins trative review of to run until has complied (Emphasis with this subsection. added.) 37. All 227.01(8), Star cites Wis. Stat. defines "party":" 'Party' means or named person or admitted as a in a contested case." (Emphasis added.) All Star notes that DELA'sdecision identified the to the contested case All parties as Star and DOT. 38. This takes us to the argument back defini- tional problem "agency," engenders it some uncertainty as to whether DHA —the decision-making tribunal —is converted into review. "pаrty" note, hand, We on the other "the agency" that that must comply with the notice requirement Wis. Stat. 227.48(2) would not DOT. It is DHA. The subsection be viewed as may internally inconsistent. 39. The conclusion that are statutes confus- not

ing does settle the issue. The DOT an presents equally persuasive interpretation that would All Star to name and require DHA serve To refute the respondent. argument decision, DHA's decision becomes DOT's DOT points several statutes that make DHA the decision-maker. 218.0116(4)(c) "[mjatters First, § states, in- volving or revocations before the suspensions brought [DOT] shall be heard and decided upon by [DHA]." "every of shall be final decision an

Second, by findings writing accompanied fact and conclusions of 227.47(1). § DOT, DHA, Since not of law." Wis. Stat. findings of fact and with the written decision issued argues that DHA must be law, of DOT conclusions agency "[a]ny person Third, interest decision-maker. may [DHA]... aggrieved have a a decision of provided in ch. 227." Wis. Stat. of the decision as argues § inter- Fourth, that All Star's DOT 227.46(2m) disregards § pretation the final of Stat. section. The last two sentences sentence 227.46(2m) provide: § administrator "The decision of the hearings appeals a final of the division agency subject 227.52. review under s. may petition [DOT] It review." would The 227.46(2m) § argues, if transforms sense, make no DOT DOT, the decision of but then allows DHA's decision into appeal Because of these DOT to its own final decision. 227.53(l)(b) requires statutes, and because in... the name of the whose to "be entitled sought respondent," decision is to be reviewed 227.53(1) clearly requires DHA to be concludes that actually respondent, it made named and served as since the decision. reading agree 40. We that DOT'S interpretation and, is also reasonable interpretation case, of the statute. This

fact, the correct involving statutory inter- however, is unlike other cases purpose pretation. Our here is not to decide which closely aligns legislative interpretation with the most interpretation. ‍‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‍is, therefore, the correct Our intent and ambiguity purpose exists. here is to determine whether general compliance rule is that "strict 41. The jurisdic- necessary procedural to obtain statutes is agency decisions." DOT v. tion to review аdministrative (1999) Peterson, 623, 633, 226 2d 594 N.W.2d 765 Wis. Regents, (quoting Trojan 277, 283, 104 2d v.Bd. Wis. (1981)). procedural "a Where, however, 586 311 N.W.2d clearly 'specific indicating statute lacks direction' who is ambiguity notice, 'an exists.'" Peter to be served with (quoting Kyncl son, 226 2d at 633 v. Kenosha Wis. (1968)). County, 547, 555, 155 N.W.2d 583 requires Ambiguity procedural in a the statute statute liberally permit a construed so as to determination controversy upon the if such merits construction Accordingly, possible. require that Id. these rules ambiguity in favor of All Star unless its resolve exclusively to name and serve DOT was nei logical all ther nor under the circumstances. reasonable McDonough, Peterson, 282; 2d at 226 See Wis. 2d at 633-34. Reasonably?

B. Did All Star Act rely solely on If a were forced to Chapter and other 227 sections to deter- Stat. 227.53 serve, name and we could understand mine whom to uncertainty. party's alone, 227.53 is a Considered Chapter confusing. context of Considered bit whole, the directive on how to obtain as a statute's confusing. even more review becomes a life not cast adrift without 43. All Star was given specific notice of how to raft, however. It was required by review, obtain аppended a to its decision DHA NOTICE respondent identifying to be named as requiring We must that the be filed served. DHA was clear and whether Notice consider only to name whether Star's decision and serve given was reasonable this Notice. procedural ambiguous,

¶ 44. Even if a statute is party ambiguity justify the who invokes the to non compliance must demonstrate that its action rea was under the sonable circumstances. See State ex rel. ¶ Bertrand, 102, 29, Grzelak v. 2003 WI 263 Wis. 2d Peterson, 678, 696, 244; 665 N.W.2d 226 Wis. 2d at 633. dispute, Because the facts are not we decide as a matter law whether All Star's action was reasonable. Coleman, 290 Wis. 2d All Whether Star's action was reasonable turns on whether the Notice appended DHA to its decision was clear. believe that We it was. Although statutorily

¶ 45. All Star raised a host of arguments why based for its failure to name and serve respondent they DHA convincing reasonable, as the was are not pro- and cannot defeat clear directive by "Any petition judicial vided the Notice: Hearings Appeals shall name the Division of as the respondent." All Star did not name or serve DHA. All Instead, Star named and served DOT.9 repeatedly ¶ 46. We have exhorted administrative agencies to include with their decisions clear notices explaining procedures that must be followed to e.g., Grzelak, obtain review. See 263 2dWis. McDonough, ¶ 24; Peterson, 227 283; Wis. 2d at Sunnyview Village, 634-35; Wis. 2d at 2d at 9 All required Star was to serve DOT under Wis. Stat. 227.53(l)(c), requires person seeking review to serve a copy petition "upon party each appeared who before the in the proceeding which the decision sought to be reviewed was xnade[.]" legislature requires important, the adminis- 412. More agencies to afford this notice. trative agency appends an a notice its 47. When clearly how to directs decision and appeal, notice any remove confusion created the notice should See about whom to name serve. the statutes Peterson, at 634-35. clearly case, the stated the In this Notice of the Division" and that

decision was "decision purpose how Star could the Notice was describe (1) pursue admin- All Star could either obtain review. asking case; review, DHA to rehear the or istrative (2) pursue latter, chose the review. All Star obligating procedures set forth in it to follow Paragraph supplied by DHA. 2 of the Notice clearly judicial

¶ review, Notice 49. To seek (1) petition "serve and file a for directed All Star days (thirty) disposition final ... within after review (2) by operation of Hear- law[;]" "name Division (3) "closely ings respondent[;]" Appeals and and §§ provisions and all 227.52 examine require- compliance all its 227.53 to insure strict ments." explicitly that All did not state 50. The Notice DHA, there can be no had to "name and serve" but

Star required DHA. All Star to serve that the Notice doubt DHA as the directed All Star name First, the Notice logic respondent. and a common As matter both respondent party should also who named as sense, did not Second, fact that the Notice served. phrase, name and serve the exact "shall contain Hearings respondent," Appeals as does and Division provided: not render the Notice unclear. The Notice "any party seeking shall serve and file a Upon reading for review .. . statement, this question the natural very is: "Whom must be The served?" question next sentence answers this because it Hearings directs the to "name the Division of Appeals respondent." as the

¶ 51. Given the direct and clear nature of the policy Notice, the concerns raised Grzelak and Sunnyview Village implicated. are not In cases, both important stated, "it is that citizens not be defeated in grievances by governmental their redress of the maze of person aggrieved by A entities. an administrative deci- guess governmental sion should not have to which entity respondent proceed- to name and serve as the ings Grzelak, 24; review." Sunnyview Village, 104 Wis. 2d at 412. DHA's Notice any guesswork determining should have removed from government entity respon- to name and serve as entity dent. Once the Notice DHA identified as the petitioner required respon- whom the was to name as petitioner given guidance dent, the was on how to read §§ statutory 227.52, 227.53, entire By clearly stating respon- scheme. that DHA is "the any statutory ambiguity dent," the Notice clarified identity respondent. 227.53 as to the The "any petition Notice was directive: shall name" DHA; ambiguity it was not an invitation to search for throughout Chapter 227. The fact that All Star failed to follow directive is the fault of All Star, not DHA. winding 52. Faced with the choice between its way through labyrinth statutory sections and the respondent, Notice's clear order to name DHA as the All disregard Star chose to the Notice. All Star's decision logical was not reasonable or under the circumstances.

638 may have unreasonable to name DOT as a It not been required respondent to serve because Star was 227.53(l)(c). But it was not reason- under Wis. Stat. ignore name and to the directive the Notice to able Accordingly, respondent. DHA the circuit court serve properly competency it to hear determined that lacked petition. All Star's Although may harsh, this result seem strict necessary

compliance procedural requirements way simple, orderly, "to maintain a conducting legal and uniform Corp. business our courts." 519 v. (1979). DOT, 276, 288, 2d 643 N.W.2d C. Waiver Finally, argu-

¶ 54. we must consider All Star's objections competency to the ment that DOT waived its lack of of the circuit court and the circuit court's personal jurisdiction by appearing over DHA to contest stay and nonrenewal All Star's motion to the revocation of its motor vehicle dealer license. subject Although

¶ "no circuit court is without jurisdiction any entertain actions of nature matter to may deprived of whatsoever[,]" a circuit court subject authority competency exercise its is, its —that jurisdiction statutory proce- required matter —if jurisdiction invoking are not the court's dures Village Trempealeau Mikrut, v. 2004 WI followed. (internal ¶¶ 2d 681 N.W.2d 190 8-9, 273 Wis. omitted). punctuation However, a failure to raise objection competency in the court can constitute circuit objection. Id., ¶ 30. waiver of the any objec- argues that DOT waived 56. All Star appear- competency circuit court's twice tion objection. raising ing the court without before waiver. See however, does not constitute conduct, DOT'S objection explained ¶¶ an id., In Mikrut we that 20-23. competency not court if it is of a circuit is waived to the any Id., ¶ 22. court at time. We the circuit raised before stating rejеcted pleading-waiver explicitly rule, that a objection competency is not waived even when the objection after the Wis. Stat. is raised four months 227.53(2) appearance id., ¶ 23 is filed.10See notice & n.5. objected the circuit court's Here, 57. DOT day

competency it filed its notice of on same appearance. Applying Mikrut, no where we stated that long as the makes a waiver would occur as objection competency court, circuit we conclude objection its to the could not have waived present competency in the case. circuit court's Regardless, even if DOT did waive its com- objection objection, petency DHA would still retain an jurisdiction. personal Service of summons is based on jurisdic- by personal a court the means obtains person. Hagen City Em- tion v. Milwaukee over Sys. Annuity ployes' Bd., & Pension 2003 WI Retirement ¶¶ 12-13, 113, 663 N.W.2d268. Without required DOT to file a notice Wisconsin Stat. days petition" of the appearance "within after service is for purpose appearance All Star. The of a notice non-petitioner "clearly person's position stat[e] allegation to each material in the ...." Wis. reference A notice of is not a substantive appearance objections competency to the pleading defensive appearance. in a notice of circuit court need not be made Mikrut, 2d 273 Wis. personal timely court lacked DHA, on the circuit service personal jurisdiction Moreover, DHA. Id. because over jurisdiction personal not defense, is a DOT could have objection to the circuit court's lack of waived DHA's personal Honeycrest jurisdiction Farms, Inc. over DHA. Sys., Inc., 256, 267, v. Brave Harvestore 1996). (Ct. App. Accordingly, find All we N.W.2d objections that DOT waived these to be Star's claim merit. without

IV CONCLUSION (1) way By summary, ¶ conclude: we 59. 227.53(1) govern- § clearly prescribe did not Stat. respondent entity mental must be named and served as (2) gave case; in this DHA's notice clear instructions but 227.53(1), making § any ambiguity and clarified unreasonable; to the notice and Star's failure follow (3) objection did not waive its to the circuit court's competency proceed. reasons, to For these the court оf appeals and All Star's decision is reversed judicial is review dismissed. century quarter ago declared the statu- A we §

tory predecessor "troublesome," 227.53 to Stat. "confusing easy "complex," not and understand," "not to only cursory read in a fashion but also when when read 227.01(1) conjunction which defines with sec. Sunnyview Village, agency." 2d at 399-400. 104 Wis. description equally valid for ‍‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‍227.53 That remains systemati- urge legislature today. again, we Once (1) cally clarify who is ch. 227 to review Wis. Stat. (2) "agency" should be in the term whom included seeks review named and served when an administrative decision. legislative pending action, Meanwhile, governmental

encourage their Wis. entities review they append

Stat. notices, which to admin- clarity decisions, istrative to ensure maximum as to whom must be named and served to obtain review of an decision.

By appeals the Court.—The decision of the court of is reversed.

¶ 62. PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. (idissenting). majority opinion The concludes that Wis. 227.53(l)(c) (2003-04)1 ambiguous with re- gard Department Transportation to whether the (DOT) proper party awas to serve in a license revoca- proceeding. Majority op., major- tion ity 27. The only alsо concludes that if All Star would have had guidance, the statutes for its failure to serve the Divi- (DHA) Hearings Appeals might sion of have been Majority op., ¶ understandable. 31. However, the ma- jority then concludes that the DHA's notice to All Star created circumstances in which it was unreasonable for only All Star to Majority op., have served the DOT. ¶ 52. 227.53(1)(c) agree I that is am

biguous. However, the DHA's notice did not direct All Star to serve the clarify DHA and therefore, it did not ambiguity. previously the statute's We have decided to liberally ambiguous procedural construe statutes in party seeking favor agency review of an decision. Peterson, DOT v. 226 Wis. 2d 623, 633, 594 N.W.2d765 (1999). serving only Therefore, I conclude All Star's DOT was reasonable under the circumstances. Accord ingly, deny judicial I would not review and because I appeals, would respectfully affirm the court of I dissent. 1All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted.

642 I. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review requires proce

¶ 64. This case us to construe a relating agency dural statute to review of deci and to determine sions whether Star acted reason ably attempting Statutory to follow the statute. question construction involves of law that we review Hughes Chrysler Corp., de novo. v. Motors 197 Wis. 2d (1996). 973, 978, 542 N.W.2d 148 Reasonableness is a question findings. Viney, of law based on factual Lohr v. (Ct. App. 468, 477-78, 174 Wis. 2d 1993). 497 730 N.W.2d independently known, When the facts are question review reasonableness as a of law. State ex rel. Dickey, McMillian 266, 277, v. 392 N.W.2d (Ct. 1986). App. 453

B. Adherence to Procedural Statutes precede

¶ 65. We our discussion of Wis. 227.53(1)(c) and the reasonableness of All ac- Star's tions with a review of the to rules we use resolve dispute proce- whether a adhered to over has necessary dures to afford review of an decision. long "[w]e Peterson, 66. As we stated in have compliance proce

adhered rule that 'strict necessary jurisdiction dural statutes is to obtain Peterson, review administrative decisions.'" (citing Trojan Regents, 2d at 633 v. Board (1981); Corp. 2d 277, 283, 311 N.W.2d 586 v. (1979); DOT, 92 643 276, 286-88, Wis. 2d 284 N.W.2d DOR, 184, 187, Brachtl v. 48 2d 179 921 Wis. N.W.2d (1970)). pointed Peterson, However, as we also out in a "companion proposition rule" corn- to this strict

643 setting clearly depends upon pliance forth the statutes procedural requirements Peterson, obtain review. (citing Trojan, 284; 2d at 104 Wis. 226 Wis. 2d at 633 186-87). Brachtl, at 48 Wis. 2d procedural lacks Therefore, a statute when indicating specific whom is to be served with direction ambiguity a liberal an that warrants notice, there exists party attempting to follow in favor of the construction procedural of an directive to obtain review Peterson, 226 2d at 633. Under decision. Wis. if a is reasonable that circumstances, those construction appealing party review and a determi would afford the ambiguity procedural statute's merits, nation on Kyncl of that construction. v. is to be resolved favor County, 547, 555-56, 2d 583 Kenosha 37 Wis. 155 N.W.2d (1968); McDonough Peterson, 633; 2d at see also 226 Wis. (1999). DWD, 686 271, 282, v. 595 N.W.2d liberally The rule to construe favor of the seeking comports of an review recognition can arise of the unfairness that with our ambiguities procedural create confu- where statutes proper said sion about the method of service. We have petitioner complied the lan- that where the has guage procedural statute, where it can be even way, reasonably interpreted in more it than one would [the] "extraordinarily petitioner's] harsh to cut off be right McDonough, 227 2d at 282 review." Wis. 284). [a (citing Trojan, party] 104 2d at "Once has having remedies, fol- exhausted his administrative procedures ... administrative ... he lowed guess to serve to initiate should not have to whom process grievances step next in the and have his heard Bertrand, 2003 in a court of law."State ex rel. Grzelak v. 102, 32, 244; 2d see also WI 263 Wis. N.W.2d Sunnyview Village, DOA, 396, 412, 2d Inc. v. (1981). procedural 311 Therefore, N.W.2d 632 where a ambiguous "specific statute is because it lacks direc- tion[s] clearly indicating who[m] is to served," ser- jurisdiction, acquire vice is sufficient for a court to if such service was reasonable under the circumstances. analyze Grzelak, ¶¶ 2d In sum, party ambiguous procedural the a action takes under an by statute asking review of an decision question: Was service reasonable under the Peterson, circumstances? See 2d 226 Wis. at 633-34. multiple applied occasions, 69. On we have this party test to conclude that achieved sufficient service by acting reasonably under the circumstances, even necessarily "right." when the served was not See Sunnyview Village, (holding 2d at 412 that petitiоn Department service of a on the of Administra- (DOA) Nursing tion and not the Division of Home (DNHFA) Appeals ap- Forfeiture awas reasonable proach according ambiguous interpretation to one 227.16(l)(a) statutory language in Wis. Stat. when conjunction read in with Wis. Stat. petitioner procedural

therefore, had fulfilled the requirements day 227.16 was entitled to its court); McDonough, (concluding 227 Wis. 2d at 283 produced ambigu- where the interaction of statutes an ity, provider's a health care on the service Labor and (LIRC) Industry Review Commission and not the De- (DWD), partment Development of Workforce accom- plished necessary service where the health care provider's to do so was reasonable under the statutes); language Peterson, 2d at 635 226 Wis. (concluding property that when owners served State of Wisconsin rather than the DOT in the course of proceedings, they condemnation had taken reasonable interpretation ambiguous action under one of an stat- successfully property therefore, ute and owners had statutory requirements completed to obtain court); ¶ 29 Grzelak, 678, governing 2d 263 Wis. the circuit procedural (concluding rules that where petition certiorari for writ of an inmate's service ambiguous, on of a the inmate's service were Depart- Secretary of the than on the the rather warden (DOC) incorrect, reasonable, if was ment of Corrections jurisdiction successfully circuit on the conferred and petition). hear the court to ambiguities statutory existence of 70. With the previously recommended to also mind,

in we have specific they append and that decision-makers indicating decisions, to their final clear notice written judi- necessary proper to obtain method of service McDonough, 2d at 227 Wis. of the decision. cial review Sunnyview Peterson, 634-35; at Vil- 283; purpose lage, notice is 412. The of such 104 Wis. 2d at clarity created confu- the statutes have to offer where Peterson, 226 Wis. 2d at 634-35. sion. See agency's final deci- An notice attached to its 71. analysis play in of whether a role our sion can also proce- attempting party's to fulfill of action course requirements "under the circum- was reasonable dural of such a notice However, the mere existence stances." necessarily mean the notice offered suffi- not does single, clarity course of to determine a reasonable cient McDonough, example, held that where action. For peti- simply order, referred the DWD, in its final ambiguous procedural statutes at one of the tioner to serving petitioner faulted for issue, could not be opposed course of to the DWD because that LIRC as comported one reasonable view action McDonough, sum, In 2d at 283-84. statute. on the reasonableness determi- effect of such a notice clarity depend of the notice. nation will on C. Statutory Construction 72. To properly analyze Star's actions with to the

regard applicable procedural rules, we must begin with the relevant language 227.53(1), which states: (1)

Parties and proceedings for review. Except specifically law, otherwise provided by any person aggrieved by a specified in s. 227.52 shall be entitled to review of the provided decision as this chapter subject to all of the following proce- requirements: dural

(a) Proceedings review shall be instituted serving petition therefor personally byor certified mail upon the agency or officials, one of its filing petition in the office of the clerk of circuit court for the county where the proceedings are to be held. ... rehearing Unless a requested 227.49, under s.

petitions for review under this paragraph shall be served and filed days within 30 after the service of the agency decision the upon all parties under s. 227.48. If a rehearing requested is 227.49, under s. any party desiring judicial review shall serve and file a petition for days review within 30 after service of the order finally disposing application of the rehearing, for or days within 30 after the final disposition by operation any application law such rehearing. The 30-day period for serving filing petition a under paragraph this day commences on the after personal mailing service or by of the decision agency. the (b) The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner's interest, showing the petitioner facts is person aggrieved by decision, grounds and ... upon petitioner contends that the decision petition may or modified. The be

should be reversed court, amended, by though serving the time for leave of petition The shall be entitled in expired. same has person serving petitioner the name of the it as and the name of the whose decision is to be sought respondent.... reviewed as

(c) A copy personally of the shall be served or, timely or certified mail when service is admitted mail, writing, by days first class not later than 30 proceeding, upon after the institution of the each appeared proceeding who in the before sought which the to be reviewed was made or added.) upon party's attorney (Emphasis of record. interpret ‍‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‍rely statute, 73. When we we on the criteria set out in State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for County, 58, 633, Dane 2004 WI 271 Wis. 2d 681 N.W.2d explained Kalal, In that: statutory purpose interpretation [T]he is to deter- may given mine what the statute means so that it its full, proper, and intended effect. important determining

Id., 44. Context is also when plain meaning purpose statute, of a as is the scope, qualities statute and its if those can be ascer- language Id., tained from the of the statute itself. statutory ¶¶ 46-48. These are all intrinsic sources for interpretation. statutory language However, Id. if ambiguous, we often consult extrinsic sources such as legislative history. Id., ¶ 48. major- appeals

¶ 74. As both court of and the ity opinion ambiguous. conclude, the statute is See All App Car, DOT, Star Rent A Inc. v. 2004 WI majority ¶¶ 11-12, 681; 688 N.W.2d op., "agency" ambiguous First, the term due to § of including interaction Wis. Stat. with various 227.01(1), § statutes, other Stat. Wis. 227.46(2m), 227.47(1), § § Stat. Wis. Stat. and Wis. 227.48(2). § Stat. 227.53(l)(b) § provides 75. When Wis. Stat. that "agency shall name the whose decision is

sought respondent," to be reviewed as and that lan- guage conjunction in is considered with the definition of provided 227.01(1), § appears in Wis. Stat. it "agency" that the term refer DOT, would to the as the majority majority op., ¶¶ itself notes. See 30-31. "Agency"is defined therein as follows:

"Agency" means the Wisconsin land council or a board, commission, committee, department or officer in government, except govеrnor, state a district attorney military judicial or or officer.

Wisconsin Stat. "agency"readily applies ¶ 76. This definition of department govern- DOT, is a the state apply ment, does DHA, but it not to the which is a division of the DOA. 227.46(2m) provides, However, pertinent part: any hearing

In assigned hearing or review to a 227.43(l)0bg), s. hearing examiner under examiner presiding the hearing prepare at shall deci- proposed sion, fact, including law, findings of conclusions of order opinion .... The administrator of the hearings division of is a appeals final decision of the subject under 227.52. The s. department may of transportation petition for review. § 227.53(1), language

¶ 78. When the of Wis. Stat. conjunc- specifically, agency," "decision of the is read 227.46(2m), appears tion with it adjudicator DHA, facts, final as the under these could designated as the to serve. other matters, three complicate 79. To further 227.46(5), § statutes, Stat. Wis. closely related 227.48(2) 227.47(1) and the provide Stat. following:

227.46(5) any if decision proceeding, In class the proceeding to file a or otherwise commence a complaint morе penalty or is made one or impose to a sanction hearing shall agency, the the examiner of officials of the agency. not be an of official 227.47(1) (2), every as Except provided sub. hearing agency an or proposed or decision of final following every and decision of hearing examiner final writing accompanied by findings agency an shall findings fact of The of fact shall of and conclusions law. statement of the separate consist of a concise and fact upon ultimate each material issue of conclusions Every proposed of or without recital evidence. final decision shall include ....

227.48(2) any of Each decision shall include notice right petition rehearing to for admin- parties decisions, time judicial istrative or review of adverse filing each allowed for identification respondent. to No time ... for period be named any filing petition review or under other permitting section administrative of an begins complied to rim until the has added.) this (Emphasis subsection. sum, In it is to from difficult derive and this scheme a satisfac- statutory tory regard serve, conclusion with "agency" need for triggers or whose "final decision" it is that review. Absent a answer that would single consistently harmonize the seemingly conflicting impli- statutes, the inter- cations the aforementioned both Star, that pretation DOT, it and the DOT, DHA, it is the interpretation are reasonable. Sunnyview Village, In we previously recog-

nized the the term ambiguity produced by "agency" very this statute. The has legislature changed not Sunnyview Village, in definition discussed the notes, majority the term "still as something serves of a snare." 31. Majority op., ¶ Furthermore, the in ambiguity the statu scheme,

tory particularly with to relation regard the between the DHA and line ship various agencies, illuminated an by entire line of cases in which proper for judicial service review of a DHA decision was not at issue, hut which line was named as the even the respondent though final under DHFS, review was that of the DHA. See Buettner v. (Ct. App 90, 2003 WI 264 Wis. 2d 663 282 700, N.W.2d Bidstrup DHFS, v. 2003); App. 171, 2001 WI 247 App DHFS, Artac v. 27, Wis. 2d 632 866; N.W.2d 2000 WI (Ct. 88, 480, 234 App 2000); Wis. 2d 610 N.W.2d 115 App DNR, v. (Ct. Borsellino 430, 232 Wis. 2d 606 255 N.W.2d DNR, v. Froebel 1999); App. 652, 217 Wis. 2d 579 (Ct. 1998); Sea View Beach Estates N.W.2d 774 App. Club, DNR, Inc. v. (Ct. 588 138, N.W.2d 667 1998). App. 83. This from the confusion comes shift gradual аdjudicative

of the traditionally function performed line themselves, adjudica- or their agencies individual bodies, tive to the DHA. This occurred as a of the result of legislature's 1977, creation 227.43 in to DHA to granted authority the assign hearing examiners adjudicated contested cases previously within various line of the state. The DHA now agencies performs over matters for the of hearings Department Department DOT, the of Com- Resources, the

Natural Depart- Department Justice, merce, DOC, Department Em- Instruction, of Public ment ployee Department DOA, and Funds, Trust Family Services. Health adjudicative recently I the shift of discussed Harley-Davidson, Inc. DHA in to the Racine functions Hearings Appeals, ¶ 110, 86, & 2006 WI v. Division of (Roggensack, J., 292 concurring) 2d 717 N.W.2d (citing the Comm'r v. Office of (Ct. Transp., 271, 277-78, 2d 159 Wis. 463 N.W.2d 1990)); App. 14. The see also 1995 Wis. Act fully language procedural not been statutes has adjusted adjudicative evolving real to account for this recog ity. one The resultant situation is similar Sunnyview controlling pro Village, where the nized adjusted statute had not for executive cedural been restructuring principal that created "divisions" as explained, department. of a this created subunit As DOA, therein, or a confusion as whether the subunit entity appropriate DNHFA, the was the to serve. Sunnyview Village, 399-01; 2d at see also Wis. majority op., ¶ 30. majority Contrary opinion, I

¶ 85. to the conclude analogous Sunnyview Village. case at is to the bar majority's attempt distinguish Sunnyview The to Vil- lage unconvincing. majority The the is distinction relationship the is based on the between DNHFA makes concluding DOA, DNHFA and that because was the Sunnyview Village's DOA, within erroneous service the statutory ambigu- on the reasonable where a DOA was ity procedure the difficult to ascertain. made correct Sunnyview Village, However, case, in as in there is this confusing statutory language refer that could to either DOT, the DHA or the and All Star's service on the DOT was based on that confusion. the central in When issue statutory language a review of the method of is service implicate entity that could more than one as the correct majority's serve, one to the distinction is not relevant. is, That it makes no difference whether the DOT is or рart according not a what DHA; the matters is that statutory scheme, the it All was reasonable for Star to serve the DOT.

D. Under Reasonableness the Circumstances seeking decision, 86. In DHA from the petitioned County All Star Court, the Dane Circuit naming respondent; the DOT as All Star the also served Attorney on All General. Star explains by noting that course of action the interaction 227.53(1) § 227.01(1), § of Wis. Stat. with Wis. Stat. 227.46(2m), 227.48(2), § Stat. Wis. 227.53(1) saying "agency" that the referred to in is the majority DOT.The concludes that this is one reasonable interpretation statutory part scheme, because interpreted reasonably can be exclude thereby eliminating appropri- division, DHA as the Majority op., ¶ ate on which to serve notice. majority The concludes that Star's failure to name respondent "might DHA and serve the as the be under- following only if All Star standable" were statutes. spirit Id. However, our rule that we will liberally ambiguous procedural construe statutes petitioner seeking Peterson, review, favor of the only I 2d at if All had conclude that Star guidance, statute for its actions were reasonable. important However, also to consider is the appended effect of the notice final to the decision of the clearly specified proper party DHA. If the notice or person ambiguity to serve so as to eliminate the in the not have directive, may then Star's actions

statutory However, the under the circumstances. been reasonable whom to serve. DHA did not name contends, however, that "there 88. The majority ¶ All Star to required can be no doubt that Notice 50,1 The relevant disagree. DHA." Majority op., serve of the Notice said: portion by aggrieved the attached decision Any person of adversely affects the substantial interests inaction, nega- by or affirmative or person action such by filing a judicial is entitled to tive form provisions with the of petition therefore accordance §§ must be petition 227.53. Said 227.52 (30) thirty days after service filed within re- sought rehearing If a to be reviewed. (1) above, any paragraph quested as noted and file a for seeking judicial review shall serve (30) order thirty days after service review within thirty or within disposing rehеaring application of the (30) Any disposition operation of law. days after final the Division of petition for review shall name de- respondent. as the Persons Hearings Appeals closely siring advised to to file review are §§ provisions all 227.52 and examine require- all compliance 227.53 to insure strict with its ments. 89. The that the nature of majority's conclusion and clear" depends

the Notice and its directive is "direct very compli- on the but majority opinion's competent, cated, Notice. 51. While analysis Majority op., attorney may an come to the conclusion experienced served, DHA unfamiliar person ‍‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‍should not come to the same conclu- legal may processes to direc- regard sion is silent with because Notice Additionally, whom serve. the conclusion tions about of the recognize fails to the influence majority suggest statutes, Notice, also referred to the "agency" the that DOT the to be served. provision stating addition, In the Notice's "any seeking judicial

that review shall serve and file for review" does not make it to оbvious subsequent the DHA serve because of the Notice's Hearings instruction, to "name the Division of Appeals respondent." majority op., ¶¶ as the See 50-51. phrases clearly The combination of those does not state "agency" pursuant the DHA is the to be served to I conclude that the Notice is far clarify clear," from "direct and and that it failed to statutory ambiguity or All offer Star clear directive proper Therefore, service. under all of the circum- including stances of case, Notice, I conclude that reasonably only All Star acted when it served the DOT preserve opportunity therefore, All Star did its substantive review.

II. CONCLUSION 227.53(l)(c) agree ¶ 91. I that Wis. Stat. is am- biguous. However, DHA's notice did not All direct clarify Star to therefore, serve DHA and it did not ambiguity. previously the statute's We have decided liberally ambiguous procedural construe statutes party seeking Peterson, favor review. 2d only Therefore, at 633. I conclude Star's service of was under reasonable the circumstances. Accordingly, deny judicial I would not review and be- appeals, respectfully I cause affirm the would court I dissent.

¶ 92. I am authorized to state that Justice LOUIS joins BUTLER, B. JR. this dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Court Name: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 6, 2006

Citation: 716 N.W.2d 506

Docket Number: 2003AP2668

Court Abbreviation: Wis.