Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 62.17 (2026)
Enforcement of building codes
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
62.1762.17 Enforcement of building codes. For the purpose of facilitating enforcement of municipal and state building, plumbing, electrical and other such codes, ordinances or statutes established for the protection of the health and safety of the occupants of buildings referred to elsewhere in this section as “building codes”, any municipality may adopt an ordinance with any of the following provisions:
62.17(1)(1) Requiring the owner of real estate subject to any building code to record with the register of deeds a current listing of the owner’s address and the name and address of any person empowered to receive service of process for the owner. Any changes of names or address in the recording shall be reported within 10 days of the change. This subsection does not apply to owner-occupied one- and 2-family dwellings.
62.17(2)(2) Establishing as sufficient notice to an owner that a building inspector or agency entrusted with the enforcement of the building code has found a violation of any applicable building code, if the building inspector or agency, after making an unsuccessful attempt of personal service during daytime hours at the latest address recorded with the register of deeds as that of the owner or agent of the owner, sends the notice by certified mail to the address noted and in addition posts a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place in or about the building where the violation exists. If the owner has not recorded under sub. (1) with the register of deeds a current address or name and address of a person empowered to receive service of process, then posting of a notice of violation on the premises and certified mailing of the notice to the last-known address of the owner as well as to the address of the premises in violation is sufficient notice to the owner that a violation has been found.
62.17(3)(3) That when notice of a violation of the building code which is found by a building inspector or agency entrusted with the enforcement of the building code is made according to sub. (2), such notice shall be effective notice to anyone having an interest in the premises, whether recorded or not, at the time of the giving of such notice; and shall be effective against any subsequent owner of the premises as long as the violation remains uncorrected and there exists a copy of the notice of violation in a public file maintained by the local agency charged with enforcement of the building codes.
62.17(4)(4) Requiring an owner to give notice to any prospective purchaser that a notice has been issued concerning a building violation, where the condition giving rise to the notice of violation has not been corrected; providing for a fine not exceeding $500 for failure to so notify; and granting the purchaser who has not received the required notice the right to make any repairs necessary to bring the property up to the requirements of the local building code and to recover the reasonable cost of those repairs from the seller.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1938–1984 · leading case: Hei v. City of Durand, 125 N.W.2d 341 (Wis. 1963).
Hei v. City of Durand, 125 N.W.2d 341 (Wis. 1963). “Whenever damages happen to any person or property by reason of any defect in any highway or other public ground, or from any other cause for which any town, city, village or county would be liable, and such damages are caused by, or arise from, the wrong, default or negligence…”
Delores Devines, Cross-Appellants v. Henry W. Maier, Cross-Appellees, 728 F.2d 876 (7th Cir. 1984). “Section 12-3 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances was enacted *883 pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 62.17, and, at the time in question, was embodied in sections 12-4 and 51-14 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances.”
Bosin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R.R., 183 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Wis. 1960). “See Section 62.17(5), Wis.Stats.; Trobaugh v.”
LeMay v. City of Oconto, 118 A.L.R. 1019 (Wis. 1938). “) The appellant contends that under sec. 62.17, Stats. 1937, the city is only required to construct, maintain, and keep sidewalks in sufficient repair for safe travel of persons traveling on foot.”
Peppas v. City of Milwaukee, 139 N.W.2d 579 (Wis. 1966). “Sec. 62.17, Stats. It must be recognized that in a state where there is no obligation on the abutting landowner to keep the sidewalk in front of his premises in repair or in a safe condition for public travel, in the absence of a statute or ordinance imposing such duty upon him…”
Hagerty v. Vill. of Bruce, 262 N.W.2d 102 (Wis. 1978). “After concluding that the duty to maintain public sidewalks was imposed upon the municipality by sec. 62.17, Stats. (1955), the court concluded: “It must be recognized that in a state where there is no obligation on the abutting landowner to keep the sidewalk in front of his…”
Miller v. Welworth Theatres, 75 N.W.2d 286 (Wis. 1956). “The public sidewalk described cannot be translated into an employer’s place of employment, because the responsibility of maintaining the sidewalk is not that of defendant; the care and maintenance clearly rests upon the municipality.”
Smith v. City of Jefferson, 99 N.W.2d 119 (Wis. 1959). “(2) In incumbering the sidewalk with the flare pots in violation of sec. 62.17, Stats. 1955 (repealed by the 1957 legislature and re-enacted in a revised form as part of sec.”
Hansen v. Schmidman Props., Inc., 115 N.W.2d 495 (Wis. 1962). “Sec. 62.17, Stats. It must be recognized that in a state where there is no obligation on the abutting landowner to keep the sidewalk in front of his premises in repair or in a safe condition for public travel, in the absence of a statute or ordinance imposing such duty upon him…”
Probst v. City of Menasha, 13 N.W.2d 504 (Wis. 1944). “By sec. 62.17, Stats., a sidewalk is made a part of the street so that the contract into which the parties entered was a contract for the construction of public works within the meaning of sec.”
Buckley v. Park Bldg. Corp., 143 N.W.2d 493 (Wis. 1966). “Sec. 62.17, Stats. It must be recognized that in a state where there is no obligation on the abutting landowner to keep the sidewalk in front of his premises in repair or in a safe condition for public travel, in the absence of a statute or ordinance imposing such duty upon him…”
Weiss v. City of Milwaukee, 68 N.W.2d 13 (Wis. 1955). “Said street is divided into a carriageway and sidewalks on either side (sec. 62.17, Stats.). On the northeasterly side, toward the lake, a gravel or cinder walk constitutes the public sidewalk, and at right angles thereto the wooden steps involved here lead down to the beach.”
— Wis. Stat. § 62.17(5) — 1 case
Bosin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R.R., 183 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Wis. 1960). “See Section 62.17(5), Wis.Stats.; Trobaugh v.”
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.