COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 26, 2011 A.
John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Brown, C.J., Anderson and Reilly, JJ.
¶1 ANDERSON, J. Pheasant
Run Condominium Homes Association, Chateau-In-The-Wood Homeowners Association,
Inc., Meadowwood Court Condominium Association and Wilderness North Condominium
Association, Inc., appeal the circuit court’s order for dismissal based on its grant
of summary judgment in favor of the City of
¶2 This appeal requests review of the circuit court’s order
granting summary judgment to the City. We
review an award of summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as
the circuit court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten,
136
¶3 The four appellants are
¶4 This case turns on the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2) and its application to the undisputed facts. Section 703.27(2) states that
[n]o county, city, or other jurisdiction may enact any law, ordinance, or regulation that would impose a greater burden or restriction on a condominium or provide a lower level of services to a condominium than would be imposed or provided if the condominium were under a different form of ownership.
¶5 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which
we review de novo. Berkos v.
¶6 However, we generally do not consult extrinsic sources such
as legislative history to aid interpretation unless the statute is ambiguous.
¶7 We agree with the circuit court that we need look no further than the language itself to give the statute its proper interpretation. The statute prohibits a jurisdiction from passing into law certain types of inequitable rules; it can be broken into three distinct elements: (1) the enactment of a law, ordinance or regulation; (2) by a county, city or other jurisdiction; (3) which imposes a greater burden or restriction or provides a lower level of services to a condominium than would be imposed or provided if the condominium were under a different form of ownership. See Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2).
¶8 Element one prohibits certain types of enactments. It plainly indicates that absent an enactment, there can be no violation of the statute. See id. Thus, in determining whether a violation has occurred under Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2), we first ask whether there has been an enactment of a law, ordinance or regulation relevant to the dispute. If the answer is no, there can exist no violation and our inquiry ends.
¶9 By its plain language, Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2) does not extend to instances where the City chooses not to provide services to condominiums and has chosen this absent the enactment of a law, ordinance or regulation. To interpret § 703.27(2) otherwise would create absurd results. See Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74, ¶¶28, 39, 311 Wis. 2d 52, 80, 751 N.W.2d 369 (The “absurd results” doctrine is the “[t]he doctrine that a statute will not be interpreted to reach an absurd result [in order] to avoid interpreting a statute in accordance with its plain language or [whenever] a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”).
¶10 The condominium associations disagree with this interpretation and advocate a cafeteria-style[2] approach to construing Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2). The associations focus exclusively on element three, which forbids unequal treatment, and ignore that element three is a contingent element: it forbids unequal treatment conducted pursuant to an enactment of a law, ordinance or regulation.
¶11 If we were to adopt the condominium associations’
interpretation, we would be disposing of the first element of the statute, the
enactment of a law, ordinance or regulation.
¶12 In short, while the City’s decision to treat private roads and public roads differently may be appalling to the condominium associations, it does not violate Wis. Stat. § 703.27(2). The City maintains public roads and does not maintain private roads and the record demonstrates that it does so regardless of what kind of property is located on the roadway. The condominium associations have private roads because their developers chose to build their developments with private roads for economic reasons related to the City’s zoning code. The City has not enacted a law, ordinance or regulation in violation § 703.27(2). The circuit court correctly rejected this argument.
¶13 The condominium associations also assert that the circuit court
erred in dismissing their state constitutional claims. We disagree.
The circuit court correctly determined that this argument was barred by
claim preclusion. Whether the doctrine
of claim preclusion applies is a question of law which we resolve independently
of the circuit court. DePratt
v.
¶14 Claim preclusion bars the condominium associations’
constitutional claims because the federal district court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin has already determined that the City did not violate the
condominium associations’ equal protection or due process rights under the federal
constitution in a suit based on the exact same facts and between the same
parties. See Pheasant Run Condo. Homes Ass’n v. City of
¶15 The condominium associations make other claims that we need not
address given our analysis. See Sweet v. Berge, 113
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] “Cafeteria-style” means to pick and choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line. See The Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cafeteria-style (“designed in such a way that one may select from a group or assortment only those things deemed desirable: a cafeteria-style benefit program”) (last visited Jan. 13, 2011).
[3] We
note that while the constitutional claims were litigated in federal court,
claim preclusion still applies because