Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 75.22 (2026)
Validity; immaterial errors
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
75.2275.22 Validity; immaterial errors. If after the issuance of a tax certificate or conveyance to the county of any lands subject to a tax certificate and within the time hereinafter prescribed it shall be discovered that the certificate was invalid, the county board shall make an order, briefly stating the reason therefor, directing that the certificate, as it applies to the affected lands, or deed be canceled. But no certificate or conveyance shall be deemed invalid within the meaning of this section by reason of any mistake or irregularity in any of the tax proceedings not affecting the groundwork of the tax; nor shall any county be liable to pay or refund any moneys by reason of any such mistake or irregularity.
75.22 AnnotationA defect in the groundwork of the tax means a defect or irregularity that necessarily affects the principle of the tax and shows that it must be unjust and unequal or an illegality or irregularity that results in an inequitable burden. In order for a county to argue that it has the authority to set aside a tax deed under this section, it would be required to show the property was inequitably taxed resulting in the property owner paying more than its equitable share of the tax. Jackson County v. DNR, 2006 WI 96, 293 Wis. 2d 497, 717 N.W.2d 713, 04-2582.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1929–2006 · leading case: Jackson Cnty. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 96 (Wis. 2006).
Jackson Cnty. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 96 (Wis. 2006). “JCSL focuses on the lack of a statute that gives the County the power to rescind a tax deed, the statutory limitation on cancellations of tax deeds set out in Wis. Stat. § 75.22 , and the effect on property ownership that Wis.”
Milwaukee Cnty. v. City of Milwaukee, 246 N.W. 447 (Wis. 1933). “Mueller, who on December 2, 1932, filed with the county board a petition for a refund of the money paid by him to the county on such sale under sec. 75.22, Stats., on the ground that the sale to him was illegal and void because there was no authority in law for conducting the…”
State ex rel. Little Yellow Drainage Dist. v. Juneau Cnty., 227 N.W. 12 (Wis. 1929). “This was done under the provisions of sec. 75.22, Stats., which require the county to refund all amounts paid for tax certificates when it is discovered that the sale, or the* certificate issued thereon, was invalid.”
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.