Wis. Stat. § 32.20
Procedure for collection of itemized items of compensation
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
32.2032.20 Procedure for collection of itemized items of compensation. Claims for damages itemized in ss. 32.19 and 32.195 shall be filed with the condemnor carrying on the project through which condemnee’s or claimant’s claims arise. All such claims must be filed after the damages upon which they are based have fully materialized but not later than 2 years after the condemnor takes physical possession of the entire property acquired or such other event as determined by the department of administration by rule. If such claim is not allowed within 90 days after the filing thereof, the claimant has a right of action against the condemnor carrying on the project through which the claim arises. Such action shall be commenced in a court of record in the county wherein the damages occurred. In causes of action, involving any state commission, board or other agency, excluding counties, the sum recovered by the claimant shall be paid out of any funds appropriated to such condemning agency. Any judgment shall be appealable by either party and any amount recovered by the body against which the claim was filed, arising from costs, counterclaims, punitive damages or otherwise may be used as an offset to any amount owed by it to the claimant, or may be collected in the same manner and form as any other judgment.
32.20 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 29 s. 1654 (8) (c); 1981 c. 249; 1987 a. 399; 1995 a. 27 ss. 1724, 9116 (5); 2011 a. 32; 2017 a. 243.
32.20 AnnotationThis section mandates the procedure for making any and all claims by condemnees. Rotter v. Milwaukee County Expressway & Transportation Commission, 72 Wis. 2d 553, 241 N.W.2d 440 (1976).
32.20 AnnotationTo stop this time limit from beginning to run, the condemnee must avoid giving physical possession of the property to the condemnor. The statute provides no exception for the circumstance in which the condemnor and condemnee engage in good faith negotiations as to the amount of relocation expenses to be paid. The legislature specifically used the term “physical” to avoid uncertainty in identifying the exact time when the legal right to possession arises. C. Coakley Relocation Systems, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2007 WI App 209, 305 Wis. 2d 487, 740 N.W.2d 636, 06-2292.
32.20 AnnotationAffirmed. 2008 WI 68, 310 Wis. 2d 456, 750 N.W.2d 900, 06-2292.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: C. Coakley Relocation Systems, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
C. Coakley Relocation Systems, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2008)
“[2] We conclude that the two-year statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 32.20 bars Coakley's claims for relocation benefits because although the City of Milwaukee (City) took physical possession of the relevant property on October 14, 2002, Coakley did not file a notice of…”
C. Coakley Relocation Systems, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2007)
“32 and that the complaint seeking those payments was barred by the statute of limitations set out in Wis. Stat. § 32.20 (2003-04). 1 We affirm.”
Aesthetic & Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Center, LLC v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2014)
“19 "must be filed after the damages upon which they are based have fully materialized," Wis. Stat. § 32.20 (emphasis added); and (2) If the agency does not allow a claim "within 90 days," the claimant may then sue in court, and either party may appeal from an adverse judgment.”
Scott N. Waller v. American Transmission Company, LLC (2013)
“Disputes about relocation benefits must be brought in separate actions under Wis. Stat. § 32.20 . ¶113 Because the Wallers did not move as a result of "rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity" as articulated in subparagraph b.”
Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County (2005)
“26(5) and Wis. Stat. § 32.20 . 13 ¶ 68. Here, Pinczkowski chose to seek initial review with the department.”
Dotty Dumpling's Dowry, Ltd. v. Community Development Authority (2002)
“, Wis. Stat. §§ 32.20 and 32.26(5). 9 In its first summary judgment ruling (see footnote 2, above), the circuit court determined that Dotty was an owner-occupant, entitled to a business replacement payment of up to $50,000, as opposed to the $30,000 statutory maximum for…”
Nesbitt Farms, LLC v. City of Madison (2003)
“See Wis. Stat. § 32.20 (requiring an itemized claim for relocation damages to be filed with the condemnor, and allowing the condemnor ninety days to allow the claim, before a claimant may file suit).”
Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler (1993)
“The department also argues that sec. 32.20, Stats., provided Vivid with the exclusive remedy for recovery of its moving expenses.”
Rotter v. Milwaukee County Expressway & Transportation Commission (1976)
“The procedure for collection of itemized items of compensation in eminent domain cases is prescribed by statute in sec. 32.20, Stats. 1965. 7 The trial court held *559 that any claim for moving expenses must, under this statute, he initially presented to the commission for…”
Shepherd Legan Aldrian Ltd. v. Village of Shorewood (1994)
“Park Lane filed a claim against Shorewood under § 32.20, Stats., for fees owed to Shepherd, and then assigned its claim to Shepherd.”
Rotter v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY EXP. & TRANSP. COMM. (1976)
“The procedure for collection of itemized items of compensation in eminent domain cases is prescribed by statute in sec. 32.20, Stats. 1965. [7] The trial court held *559 that any claim for moving expenses must, under this statute, be initially presented to the commission for…”
Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler (1994)
“Finally, the DOT stated that in order to receive payment, Vivid should file a claim under sec. 32.20, Stats., which sets forth a procedure for collection of damages itemized in sec.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.