35 N.W.2d 408 | Wis. | 1948
Proceedings in the circuit court were begun May 28, 1948, to determine a division of assets between the town of Cassian and the town of Nokomis. An order adjusting the assets was entered July 9, 1948. The town of Cassian appeals and the town of Nokomis files a motion to review portions of the order.
On April 21, 1948, the town of Nokomis was created pursuant to sec.
The court found:
(1) That the proportion of assessed valuation of all taxable property in the town of Nokomis was 52.5 per cent of the assessed valuation of all taxable property in the old town of Cassian; and that the percentage remaining in the town of Cassian was 47.5 per cent.
(2) That the following property constituted the assets of the town of Cassian at the time of division:
Equipment and other tangible personal
property $19,807.20
Real estate 900.00
Receipts from United States government
bonds 5,548.50
Cash on hand on April 21, 1948 3,941.48
Receipts from state highway department and
highway aids 6,876.75
Amounts collected by the town treasurer on
accounts due the town of Cassian for snow
removal and work, as well as for personal-property
taxes returned delinquent 132.77
Forest-crop state aid received in the amount of 844.70
Received from county treasurer since April 21,
1948, on account of taxes collected by the
county treasurer 180.66
----------
Total $38,232.06
*97
Minus: Amount paid by town of Cassian for debts contracted before the division $1,697.06 Amount owed law firm of O'Melia Kaye for services 650.00 ---------- Balance $35,885.00
Also: Two items of delinquent taxes, both delinquent personal-property and delinquent and postponed real-estate taxes. Amounts due the town of Cassian on account of snow removal and work done for private persons prior to the date of the division of said town. Various state aids, grants, apportionments, and refunds. (3) That the highways and bridges in the town of Cassian prior to the division were not assets to be apportioned.
(4) That certain of the delinquent taxes were paid under protest.
(5) That the sum of $1,000 had been paid by the town of Cassian to the town of Nokomis on account.
The court made the following distribution:
(1) That the amount of $35,885 which was the balance in (2) above, less the $1,000 paid the town of Nokomis on account, should be apportioned 52.5 per cent to the town of Nokomis and 47.5 per cent to the town of Cassian with certain provisions for real estate now situated in the town of Nokomis; also that any amounts received for the delinquent taxes or on the snow-removal account should be apportioned on the 52.5 per cent to 47.5 per cent basis.
(2) That any money received within two years from the date of the order as grants, aids, apportionments, or refunds from the federal, state, or county government based on any conditions existing before the division of the town of Cassian *98 should be apportioned on the same 52.5 per cent to 47.5 per cent basis.
(3) That any suit for recovery of the 1947 taxes paid under protest should be defended jointly and any recovery reimbursed, if neither town appeals, 52.5 per cent by Nokomis.
The town of Cassian appeals from this order of distribution claiming that the division of the agreed assets is inequitable, that the future aids, etc., are not assets, that the court had no power to fix a joint ownership of these expectancies or of the right to defend the tax suits, and that the statutes only called for a division of debts, not of assets.
The town of Nokomis has filed a motion to review claiming that the circuit court was in error in holding that the bridges and highways were not to be included as assets to be apportioned and objecting to the payment of certain attorneys' fees.
The town of Nokomis was created under sec.
The applicable subsections of sec. 66.03, Stats., are (2), (7), and (8). They provide:
"(2) Basis. Except as otherwise provided in this section when territory is transferred, in any manner provided by law, from one municipality to another, there shall be assigned to such other municipality such proportion of the assets and liabilities of the first municipality as the assessed valuation of all taxable property in the territory transferred bears to the assessed valuation of all the taxable property of the entire *99 municipality from which said territory is taken according to the last assessment roll of such municipality.
"(7) Adjustment, how made. The apportionment board shall determine, except in the case of public utilities, such assets and liabilities from the best information obtainable and shall assign to the municipality to which the territory is transferred its proper proportion thereof by assigning the excess of liabilities over assets, or by assigning any particular asset or liability to either municipality, or in such other manner as will best meet the requirements of the particular case. . . .
"(8) Appeal to court. In case the apportionment board is unable to agree, the circuit court of the county in which either municipality is situated, may, upon the petition of either municipality, make the adjustment of assets and liabilities pursuant to provisions of this section."
At common law when a new town was created out of an old town it had no claim to a portion of the common property except what fell within its boundaries. 26 R.C.L., Towns, p. 791, sec. 11; De Pere v. Bellevue,
The first objection of the appellant is to the jurisdiction of the circuit court in apportioning the assets and liabilities under sec. 66.03 (8), Stats. There is no attempt in the enactments of the legislature to vest in the court authority to pass upon the *100 wisdom and policy of the creation of the town of Nokomis. That town has come into existence. As far as that event is concerned, the legislative authority has passed upon all questions of policy and expediency which are vested in that body alone.
Two existing towns are now called to divide their assets and liabilities. The parties have reached a point where a lawsuit is necessary because they are unable to agree on a division. The legislature has placed upon the court, when a petition is made, the duty of proceeding to an adjustment of the matter in dispute between the contending towns. It is no longer a legislative or administrative matter. The court is determining the conflicting claims of two disputing parties. This takes these proceedings out of the rule laid down in the case of Town ofMilwaukee v. City of Milwaukee, 12 Wis. *93. Nor is this contrary to the doctrine of In re Incorporation of North Milwaukee,
The second contention of the appellant is that sec.
Appellant's next assertion is that assets do not include delinquent taxes or federal, state, and county aids and grants, such as auto-license and gas-tax aids under secs. 20.49 and 85.045 (1), Stats., forest-crop aids under sec.
The power to apportion assets and liabilities is not arbitrary. It rests upon fixed principles of justice, which have for their object the protection of the taxpayer in each of the interested towns. Although the payment of delinquent taxes and the receipt of federal, state, and county aids are only contingencies they are generally regarded as assets of a town. See OwsleyCounty Board of Education v. Owsley County Fiscal Court,
Appellant urges that the two-year period is unjust and arbitrary. The circuit court evidently used the two-year period because the liquor occupational-tax aids are paid on the basis of the last federal census. Since the next federal census will not be taken until 1950 the order was drawn to cover the two-year period during which the town of Cassian will receive the allotment of both towns.
This two-year period is a reasonable time. From a careful study of the basis of the other aids and grants, it appears that in that period of time they, too, will be distributed to the two *102 towns. By 1950 the administrative records should be changed to conform to the conditions caused by creating the new towns.
Since the two towns are required to share the assets of the old town, they must also share the liabilities. Therefore the trial court properly held that any suits for recovery of the 1947 taxes paid under protest should be jointly defended and that in case of any refund the town of Nokomis should reimburse the town of Cassian by 52.5 per cent thereof.
The circuit court also found that the bill of the law firm of O'Melia Kaye, attorneys for the town of Cassian, should be deducted from the assets to be distributed. The town of Nokomis made a motion to review and contended that, since these fees were earned in opposing the dissolution proceedings, they should be paid by the town of Cassian alone. However, the town of Cassian had a legal right to defend against such proceedings. The services were rendered before the date of dissolution. They were ordered by those then in authority and became an obligation of the whole town.
It is also considered in relation to the motion to review that the circuit court's exclusion of proof of the value of roads and bridges on the ground that the assessed valuation of the surrounding area reflects the value of the roads and bridges is correct. It is a well-established fact that when the value of any single piece of property is arrived at the improvements are taken into consideration.
By the Court. — Motion to review denied. Order affirmed. *103
