Property Rights

Supreme Court Will Examine Whether a Wisconsin Family Needs Government Permission to Sell Their Land

A dispute over 2.5 acres of land in the Wisconsin woods has morphed into a major property rights case. Several other states are watching it closely.

|

Photo courtesy Pacific Legal Foundation

After a decade of legal wrangling over the fate of their half-century old cabin, the Murr family will take their property rights dispute from the backwoods of western Wisconsin to the marble halls of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And what began as a regulatory battle over less than three acres of land has morphed into a legal case attracting interest from eight other states.

The Supreme Court next month will hear oral arguments for Murr V. Wisconsin, a case that originated all the way back in 2004, when Donna Murr and her siblings tried to sell a parcel of land along the St. Croix River that the family has owned since the 1960s. They couldn't do that, they were told by St. Croix County and the state Department of Natural Resources, because the parcel was not large enough to comply with regulations regarding the distance between waterways and buildings.

There's nothing built on the 1.25 acre parcel the Murrs were trying to sell, but the family own a cabin that sits on an adjacent 1.25 acre piece of land. They couldn't sell the vacant parcel without tearing down the cabin on the other parcel, they were told.

Even though the two pieces of land are separate—Donna Murr says the family has paid taxes on them, separately, since buying the neighboring, vacant parcel in the 1960s as an investment—the county and state say they can combine the parcels for regulatory purposes because they have a common owner, thanks to a state law passed in 1975.

"We aren't going to be allowed to sell the second parcel, unless we tore down the cabin next door. We were stunned," Murr said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "We couldn't believe that the government would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then deny us the basic property rights here."

Since they can't sell the vacant parcel or build anything on it, its value as an investment has diminished by as much as 90 percent. Donna Murr said the property was appraised for $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it, but when the family asked the county to buy it from them (since no one else was allowed), they were offered a mere $40,000.

Murr told the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram last year that the family has paid more than $78,000 in taxes on the property since purchasing it. Some investment.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based libertarian law firm, is representing the Murr family in the case. Attorneys for PLF say they hope to strike a blow against an all-too-common problem across the country: that regulators must provide just compensation when prohibiting private property owners for using their property as they want.

The Fifth Amendment requires government to compensate land owners when property is taken for a public purpose. If the Supreme Court sides with the Murr family, the case could serve to extend that principle to situations where property, for all intents and purposes, has been seized by regulators who are prohibiting the use or sale of land.

"This case has broad implications, because the Murrs are far from alone in confronting this issue," says John Groen, an attorney for PLF. "The problem of bureaucrats and courts defining the parcel as a whole to include adjoining lots in common ownership presents itself throughout the country."

Photo courtesy Pacific Legal Foundation

In briefs filed with the Supreme Court in advance of oral arguments, St. Croix County defends its decision to merge the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. The existing cabin (and any future construction on the adjacent parcel) violates rules passed in the 1975 banning construction near the river.

"By allowing an additional residence that failed to meet minimum standards in an area already threatened by overcrowded development…the county's ability to prevent harmful soil erosion, avoid contamination of surface and ground water, minimize flood damage, and maintain property values would be seriously undermined," attorneys for St. Croix County wrote.

The county also argues that the Donna Murr, her siblings, and her parents (who owned the lots until the mid-1990s, when they sold them to their children) have never "treated them as distinct parcels in their day-to-day use of the lots" and have used the vacant lot for parking, camping, and volleyball games.

The state of Wisconsin, in a brief filed with the Supreme Court, argues that the two parcels should be viewed legally as a single piece of property, but also asks the court to use this case to clear up longstanding, complicated legal issues surrounding when states must compensate homeowners when similar conflicts between private property and government regulations occur.

That's why other states are watching Murr V. Wisconsin too. Some are even getting involved.

Nevada filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Wisconsin's interpretation of the law is incorrect. Eight other states have joined Nevada's brief, which emphasizes how the Murr case could have negative consequences for states—particularly western states—that occasionally butt heads with the federal government over land use rules.

If allowed to stand, it would undermine the interests of state governments in multiple ways, Nevada's attorneys argue in the brief, because it would leave their property vulnerable to large-scale uncompensated encroachment by the federal government.

"If regulators do not have to pay compensation to affected property owners in cases where the latter happen to possess contiguous lots, they will often have little incentive to fully consider the costs and benefits of proposed regulations, and prioritize those with the greatest likely beneficial impact," they argue. "Aggregating contiguous parcels under common ownership into a single super-parcel will undermine traditional notions of property rights, have deleterious economic consequences, and encourage the undisciplined regulation of individuals' and states' property."

(The Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in defense of the Murr family's claim).

For the Murr family, this case is deeply personal. The cabin that has been in the family for five decades is in need of repair, and selling the extra chunk of land is the only way they will be able to pay for the expensive upkeep of their personal getaway, Donna Murr says.

For the states involved in the case—from Wisconsin to Nevada—the Supreme Court's ruling could have ramifications that stretch far beyond a tiny parcel of land on the banks of the St. Croix River.

Advertisement

NEXT: Photo

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We couldn’t believe that the government would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then deny us the basic property rights here.”

    Government gonna government.

  2. If the Supreme Court sides with the Murr family, the case could serve to extend that principle to situations where property, for all intents and purposes, has been seized by regulators who are prohibiting the use or sale of land.

    I need a change of pants…

  3. I sincerely hope they call their plot Murr Woods.

    1. They tried to, but the county demurred.

      1. Please tell us murr about it?

  4. Reminds me of a friend of mine who was trying to demo and rebuild his house. Local authorities held up his demo permit for months while they tried to determine whether it was a historical strucure or not. His response was, “if this thing is historical, you guys owe me about $25,000 in property tax that I have overpaid.”

    1. Of course they had their cake and ate it too cuz fytw.

  5. If they have been taxed as seperate for 50 years they are seperate. Another case of the state changing the rules when it benefits them.

  6. “By allowing an additional residence that failed to meet minimum standards in an area already threatened by overcrowded development?the county’s ability to prevent harmful soil erosion, avoid contamination of surface and ground water, minimize flood damage, and maintain property values would be seriously undermined,” attorneys for St. Croix County wrote.

    Then tell the taxpayers who elected your regulators that they’re coughing up $400,000.

  7. The county also argues that the Donna Murr, her siblings, and her parents (who owned the lots until the mid-1990s, when they sold them to their children) have never “treated them as distinct parcels in their day-to-day use of the lots” and have used the vacant lot for parking, camping, and volleyball games.

    This seems to have no relevance to the case. Nobody is required to treat their property as separate from a neighboring on in day-to-day use, especially when the owners know each other and generally allow each other free access to the respective properties.

    1. Could not be more on point. It doesn’t matter in the least. They could have a tacit agreement to park on the land with any owner. Moot point and proof that they are throwing crap at the wall.

  8. It’s a taking, plain and simple.

    1. It was taking back in 1975, we’re 42 years since the tale was made.

  9. Ok, if the rule is that there is not enough setback/acerage to use that parcel of land to build on and that rule has been in place since 1975, why can’t the Murrs sell it? The future owner would have to deal with the fact that nothing can be built on it, not the Murrs. If so, I assume local regulation has rezoned the land to a non buildable quality and the Murrs simply are unlucky. The only thing I could see is if the Murrs are owed for overpaying taxes from the land being overvalued for the past some odd years. The combining of parcels is just a red herring because the real issue is the land has no value for development because of the regulation. The 400,000 valuation is arbitrary and obviously fails to account for the regulation.

    1. Pretty sure the legal question is heavily influenced by the precedent of the Supreme Court Lucas decision in 1992 – https://goo.gl/3j7Z9P

      Going by that precedent, relevant case law is that a parcel of land has been taken (and the owner is therefore entitled to compensation) if regulations are changed so that it is left with no economically beneficial use. So under that legal standard, it matters quite a bit if this land is considered to be one parcel, part of which can have a building on it, or two parcels, one of which can’t be used to build anything.

  10. Guy I know had a plot of land in the Santa Cruz mountains that had an unpermitted shack on it when he bought it. The county ordered him to demolish, and then expected him to get a fucking PERMIT to demolish the shack. So, and order wasn’t permission.

    He just ignored them until it collapsed on its own.

    -jcr

  11. I don’t even accept the premise that government has any business regulating how close your house is to the river. If I own a piece of property next to the river, I deserve the right to build a house with a two-car garage that literally requires you to drive into the river to exit it, and to sell it to anyone dumb enough to be okay with that.

    Then you throw in all the fuckery that the state is doing to hold a perfectly safe (even by their standards) piece of land for ransom based on a different piece of land?

    Hope the PLF spanks them hard in court.

    1. Yes. Crime requires actual harm, not potential. If you pollute the river by driving into it to get in your garage, then charge you with that harm. Maybe you only drive into it when the river is low. Maybe your truck is lifted high enough that only the tires touch water, and that’s no more polluting than runoff from the ground 50 feet away (or whatever the minimum setback is).

      I’d love to see an Amendment requiring all legal actions involve actual harm and actual restitution to victims, and loser pays court and legal costs. 90% of criminal cases would vanish.

    2. I knew a guy in Gotham City who parked in a cave and he had to drive through a waterfall to leave the property.

      1. Yeah, but he didn’t file for any permits.

        1. That sort of thing create problems…….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WytgfPwQQ8

        2. He was buds with the crony politicians – – – – –

    3. The thing is, the St. Croix River is a Federally Protected Scenic Waterway

  12. So if I own two cars parked side-by-side in the same garage, a smog check failure on one disables the registration on both?

    If a compact florescent light bulb burns out in one lamp, do I have to replace the working incandescent light buld in its companion lamp at the other end of the couch?

    Tar and feathers were invented for bozos like this.

  13. “We couldn’t believe that the government would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then deny us the basic property rights here.”

    “Without charging us an extra fee for us to legally tear down the cabin, I mean.”

  14. Since they can’t sell the vacant parcel or build anything on it, its value as an investment has diminished by as much as 90 percent. Donna Murr said the property was appraised for $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it, but when the family asked the county to buy it from them (since no one else was allowed), they were offered a mere $40,000.

    Murr told the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram last year that the family has paid more than $78,000 in taxes on the property since purchasing it.

    So, when is the county refunding all those back taxes?

  15. “We couldn’t believe that the government would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then deny us the basic property rights here.”

    I couldn’t believe that they wouldn’t take your money and then violate your property rights. But I am a curmudgeon.

  16. “We couldn’t believe that the government would happily take our property tax dollars for fifty years, and then deny us the basic property rights here.”

    Bwahahahaha!

    That’s so cute!

  17. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
    !!@@~
    Best Of Luck for new Initiative
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????? http://www.moneytime10.com

  18. “…Donna Murr said the property was appraised for $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it, but when the family asked the county to buy it from them (since no one else was allowed), they were offered a mere $40,000”
    ——–
    “…and maintain property values would be seriously undermined,” attorneys for St. Croix County wrote.”

    So they had to kill property values in order to save them?

    1. Consistent enough for government work.

  19. “If allowed to stand, it would undermine the interests of state governments in multiple ways, Nevada’s attorneys argue in the brief, because it would leave their property vulnerable to large-scale uncompensated encroachment by the federal government.”

    Suck it up buttercup, you assholes don’t hesitate to violate the rights of citizens in your states so why should we sympathize with your grievances against Uncle Sam?

  20. “By allowing an additional residence that failed to meet minimum standards in an area already threatened by overcrowded development?the county’s ability to prevent harmful soil erosion, avoid contamination of surface and ground water, minimize flood damage, and maintain property values would be seriously undermined,” attorneys for St. Croix County wrote.

    Dangerous little parcel that is. Plague, floods, and worst of all, you might use your property in a way that does not benefit the rest of us financially.

  21. So file RICO charges against all past and present tax collectors, who conspired to enrich themselves (through the county payroll) with the ill-gotten taxes on a useless piece of land they overvalued to artificially raise the tax amount.
    Bring in the FEDS!!!
    (Oh, wait, they already own the river)

    1. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
      !!@@~
      Best Of Luck for new Initiative
      ???????????????????????????????????????????????? http://www.jobmax6.com

  22. I too was always leery about work at home offers because they always seemed to be scams. But soon after hit by recession, I was a little frightened. I wanted to have a backup plan just in case. So, I took your advice and got my Home Profit System (cuz they offered a Moneyback Guarantee,) . It worked like a charm – I was earning money right away! I eventually did get laid off, just as I had feared, but since I had been using the Home Profit System I had money to fall back on. Now I’m doing better than I had at my job!,,, if u want to know more info must visite this site,

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_++_+_+_+_+_+_ http://www.moneytime10.com

  23. Even though the two pieces of land are separate?Donna Murr says the family has paid taxes on them, separately, since buying the neighboring, vacant parcel in the 1960s as an investment? ???? ?? ?? ??????
    ???? ????? ?? ????????? the county and state say they can combine the parcels for regulatory purposes because they have a common owner, thanks to a state law passed in 1975.

  24. I don’t understand why this has to go to the Supreme Court. Are there no wood chippers in Wisconsin?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.