Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 6 - December 10, 2006 <br /> <br />z.B. <br /> <br />not sue in his own right because he had no injury different than City Limits, a.n~ <br />City Limits owned the business license in question. <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of City Limits and McKibbin. <br />The' constitutional minimum fora person to have the right to sue was an <br />injury, a connection between the conduct complained of and'the injntY, ~dthe <br />ability for the injury to be redressed by a court decision. Based on this, McKibbin <br />could proceed with his claims. . <br />McKibbin faced a threat of criminal prosecution (or violating ther county <br />zoning ordinance, which was a non-monetary injury di$tinct from City :Liniits' <br />asserted monetary and constitutional harms. Consequently, he cou14 stie in his <br />own right. <br />see also: Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School District, 843$.Su,pp.583 <br />(1994). <br />see also: Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483 (2003). <br /> <br />Fees _ Land buyer claims subdivider failed to inform him ofpoteittial <br />tax penalty <br />Subdivider argues he gave as much information as required <br />Citation: Thomas v. Pringle, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 2, No. <br />2006AP697 (2006) <br /> <br />WISCONSIN (10/18/06) - Pringle subdivided his agriculturall~d into nine <br />residential parcels; For years, the land was assessed as agricu~turali 1aJ;ld. How- . <br />ever, in 2004, the land was rezoned to residential. <br />. Thomas bought one of Pringle's lots a few month~ later. Several docurp.ents <br />provided to Thomas' by Pringle informed Thomas that the lot was tlj1e subjpct of <br />a "use-value assessment." However, the documents provided no ftlrt11er expla- <br />nation. <br />During his ownership, Thomas did not make any improvements tq the rand. <br />or obtain a building permit. A year.later, the county ~easurer notifie~ ThoJ:Uas <br />that the lot was no.1o11ger devoted to agricultural us~ and, asown~r <;lurihg the <br />. time of the change in use, Thomas owed a significaI1.t tax penalty.! . <br />Thomas sued Pringle, claiming that pringle did riot provide hip1 with com- <br />plete disclosure concerning the possible tax liability of the land. ~e court ruled <br />in Thomas' favor. <br />Pringle appealed, arguing that he had infOl:med Thomas. of ~1te liabilltly by <br />referencing the use-value assessment. . <br />DECISION:Af6rmed. <br />Pringle did not give Thomas sufficient notice of a potential pel1alty. The rel- <br />evant paragraph in the documents that Pringle gave Thomas spok~ofuse-value <br />assessment generally and a possible penalty. However; this informa~on did. not teU <br />Thomas whether Pringle ever had been assessed a penalty or had. one deferred. <br /> <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West orand. Any reproduc~ion is prohibited. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />f.ff""..... <br />{(, -~.~ <br /> <br /> <br />i <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />146 <br />