Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a governmental notice of disallowance under Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g) must be served on the claimant by registered or certified mail in strict compliance with the statute. Delivery of the notice to the claimant's adult daughter, even where the claimant had actual notice, did not commence the six-month limitations period. The court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the dismissal of Pool's inverse-condemnation action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g) requires strict compliance with its requirement that a notice of disallowance be served on the claimant by registered or certified mail.
- Whether actual notice of a notice of disallowance, or a certified-mail receipt signed by the claimant's adult daughter, is sufficient to commence the statute's six-month limitations period.
- Whether Wis. Stat. § 990.001(13) alters the service requirements of Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g).
Holdings
- A governmental body must strictly comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g) to obtain the benefit of the shortened six-month statute of limitations. The notice of disallowance must be served on the claimant by registered or certified mail.
- Actual notice does not substitute for proper service on the claimant. A receipt signed by the claimant's adult daughter did not establish service on Pool, so the six-month limitations period did not commence.
- Wis. Stat. § 990.001(13) does not alter the requirement in § 893.80(1g) that service of a notice of disallowance be made on the claimant by either registered or certified mail.
Key quotations
“We conclude that service of a notice of disallowance must be upon the claimant and strictly comply with those modes of service set out in Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g).” (¶ 2)
“Strict compliance with the statute is necessary for the City to obtain the benefit of the shortened six-month statute of limitations period and also to protect Pool's bona fide claim.” (¶ 21)
“We conclude that service of a notice of disallowance must be made on the claimant and must strictly comply with those modes of service set out in Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1g).” (¶ 25)
Factual background
Pool owned property adjoining State Highway 28 in Sheboygan and maintained a privacy fence along the highway. The City required removal of the fence to widen the highway and removed it in May 2003, later installing a sidewalk in its place. Pool filed a claim for $65,000 alleging inverse condemnation. The City mailed a notice of disallowance by certified mail, but Pool's adult daughter—not Pool—signed the receipt.
Procedural history
Pool filed a notice of claim against the City alleging that removal of his privacy fence constituted an inverse condemnation without just compensation. The City sent a notice of disallowance by certified mail, but Pool's adult daughter signed the receipt. The circuit court dismissed Pool's action as untimely after finding that Pool had actual notice. The court of appeals reversed, holding that strict statutory compliance was required. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.