January-February Vol. 5, No. 1

Casenotes

Wisconsin

Surveys

Manlick v Loppnow, 2011 WI App 132, 804 NW2d 712 (Wis Ct App, 2011).

Facts: In September 2009 the Manlicks filed suit against their neighbors the Loppnows alleging trespassing, conversion, private nuisance and property loss through misrepresentation after the Loppnows built a pier and shore station on the boundary line between the two properties. The Loppnows counterclaimed for nuisance and trespass. The dispute between the neighbors concerned how to measure the boundary lines in the lake. The Manlicks argued that the line should be measured by just extending the onshore property division lines into the water. If the line were to be measured that way then the Loppnows' pier and shore station infringed on the Manlicks' riparian rights. However, the Loppnows argued that the proper way to measure was the "coterminous method" which would draw the boundary line at a 45 degree angle from the shore. Using this method the Manlicks' pier would be over the line and would be infringing on the Loppnows' riparian rights.

At trial it was determined that the issue of how to measure the boundary lines was an issue of law for the court to decide. The court held that the coterminous method was the most equitable method of measurement and thus dismissed the Manlicks' claims. It then submitted the Loppnows' counterclaims to a jury, which decided that although the Manlicks' pier was a nuisance it was not significant enough to award damages. The Manlicks appealed.

Holding: Affirmed. The Manlicks presented two issues on appeal. First they argued that the trial court had decided on the wrong method of measuring the boundary lines, and second, they argued that the jury should have decided the proper method, not the court. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin had previously held that "there is no set rule in Wisconsin for establishing the extension of boundaries into a lake" but there were guidelines. In general, if the shoreline is a straight line then extending the boundary line as the Manlicks wanted was the proper method. However, if the shore line is curved, as it was in this case, then the coterminous method is appropriate. In deciding which method to use, a court should base its decision on "what is fair and equitable under the circumstances."

The court decided that because of the nature of the shore line of the Manlicks' and Loppnows' property, the coterminous method was the proper method of measurement. The court also agreed with the trial court that the issue of deciding which measurement to use was an issue of law, not fact, and therefore was not for a jury to decide.

Issue HOME

Print this page