32.05(11)(b)(b) If the jury verdict as approved by the court exceeds the basic award, the appellant shall have judgment for the amount of such excess plus legal interest thereon to date of payment in full from that date which is 14 days after the date of taking.

32.05(11)(c)(c) All moneys payable under this subsection shall be paid within 60 days after entry of judgment unless within such period an appeal is taken to the court of appeals.

32.05(12)(12) Effect of determination of compensation by the court where jury waived. If the action is tried by the court upon waiver of a jury the determination of the amount of damages by the court shall be considered in lieu of the words “jury verdict as approved by the court” where such language occurs in this section.

32.05 NoteNOTE: 2003 Wis. Act 214, which affected this section, contains extensive explanatory notes.

32.05 AnnotationIf a notice of appeal from a condemnation award is not served on the condemnor, the appeal is not perfected. In making an assignment to condemnation commissioners, a judge is acting in an administrative capacity. State ex rel. Milwaukee County Expressway Commission v. Spenner, 51 Wis. 2d 138, 186 N.W.2d 298 (1971).

32.05 AnnotationWhen the plaintiffs sold two parcels of land but reserved a strip between them for street purposes and the state then condemned the strip for a street, the taking was total and no special benefits to the land already sold could be considered. Renk v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 539, 191 N.W.2d 4 (1971).

32.05 AnnotationWhen the record owner of property is deceased, the jurisdictional offer may properly be served on the heirs. Any objection may be raised only by action under sub. (5). A motion to quash the proceeding is not sufficient. Area Board of Vocational, Technical & Adult Education v. Saltz, 57 Wis. 2d 524, 204 N.W.2d 909 (1973).

32.05 AnnotationSub. (11) (c) does not govern the time within which an appeal may be taken, but rather sets forth the time within which a party seeking to withhold payment pending the outcome of the appeal must file its appeal. Weiland v. DOT, 62 Wis. 2d 456, 215 N.W.2d 455 (1974).

32.05 AnnotationThe sub. (10) (a) requirement of service of a notice of appeal by personal service or by certified mail is not met by service through regular mail. Big Valley Farms, Inc. v. Public Service Corp., 66 Wis. 2d 620, 225 N.W.2d 488 (1975).

32.05 AnnotationScale drawings of a proposed sewer line as it traversed the condemnee’s property were sufficient to comply with sub. (1). Ingalls v. Village of Walworth, 66 Wis. 2d 773, 226 N.W.2d 201 (1975).

32.05 AnnotationA condemnor appealing under sub. (10) has no right to abandon the appeal over the condemnee’s objection if the time for the condemnee to appeal has expired. Huth v. Public Service Corp., 82 Wis. 2d 102, 260 N.W.2d 676 (1978).

32.05 AnnotationDiscussing the valuation of a financially troubled mass transit public utility in a condemnation take-over by a governmental unit. Sub. (11) (b) requires the payment of continuous simple interest at the legal rate of five percent from 14 days after the date of the taking until the date of payment. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. v. Milwaukee County, 82 Wis. 2d 420, 263 N.W.2d 503 (1978).

32.05 AnnotationIf an action under sub. (5) is untimely, a court must, on its own motion, dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Achtor v. Pewaukee Lake Sanitary District, 88 Wis. 2d 658, 277 N.W.2d 778 (1979).

32.05 AnnotationA court had no jurisdiction over a party to an appeal when service under sub. (10) (a) was by first class mail. 519 Corp. v. DOT, 92 Wis. 2d 276, 284 N.W.2d 643 (1979).

32.05 AnnotationSales of components comparable to components of a unitary economic entity were admissible to prove the value of the entity. Income evidence was properly excluded. Leathem Smith Lodge, Inc. v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 406, 288 N.W.2d 808 (1980).

32.05 AnnotationIn the absence of special circumstances, giving notice of “appeal” under sub. (10) (a) to a party’s attorney was not sufficient notice to the party. Time computations under sub. (10) (a) and s. 32.06 (10) are controlled by s. 801.15 (1), not s. 990.001 (4). Gangler v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 110 Wis. 2d 649, 329 N.W.2d 186 (1983).

32.05 AnnotationThe market value of a unique property that cannot be sold for near its value to its owner may be determined by the cost approach: replacement cost minus depreciation. Milwaukee Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority, 161 Wis. 2d 472, 468 N.W.2d 663 (1991).

32.05 AnnotationIn a review under sub. (11), the jury was not limited to the ultimate opinion of expert appraisers in setting value through the cost approach but was entitled to consider a contractor’s testimony of replacement cost. Milwaukee Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority, 161 Wis. 2d 472, 468 N.W.2d 663 (1991).

32.05 AnnotationService of an appeal under sub. (9) must be made within the time prescribed under s. 801.02 (1). City of La Crosse v. Shiftar Bros., 162 Wis. 2d 556, 469 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1991).

32.05 AnnotationOne of the conditions precedent for the issuance to the condemnor of a writ of assistance under sub. (8) is that the displaced person must have comparable replacement property made available to the extent required by ss. 32.19 to 32.27. No substantive right is created by sub. (8). City of Racine v. Bassinger, 163 Wis. 2d 1029, 473 N.W.2d 526 (Ct. App. 1991).

32.05 AnnotationThe removal, in eminent domain proceedings, of billboards not in conformity with s. 84.30 is subject to the just compensation provisions of s. 84.30 (6). Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler, 182 Wis. 2d 71, 512 N.W.2d 771 (1994).

32.05 AnnotationA purchase agreement under sub. (2a) is subject to the provisions of this chapter; failure to refer to the provisions of this chapter is not a waiver. Sub. (11) (a) applies to all awards including negotiated awards. Dorschner v. DOT, 183 Wis. 2d 236, 515 N.W.2d 311 (Ct. App. 1994).

32.05 AnnotationComparable sales occurring after a taking may be considered by a court but may be found inadmissible as too remote. Postjudgment interest under sub. (10) (b) is determined under s. 815.05 (8) while interest under sub. (11) (b) is at the statutory rate. Calaway v. Brown County, 202 Wis. 2d 736, 553 N.W.2d 809 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2337.

32.05 AnnotationAfter the Department of Transportation (DOT) commences condemnation proceedings under this section, sovereign immunity is fully waived. The question of whether the cost of the condemnee’s appraisal is reasonable and, therefore, subject to payment by DOT under sub. (2) (b) is not for DOT to unilaterally determine; it is a question of fact for the court. Miesen v. DOT, 226 Wis. 2d 298, 594 N.W.2d 821 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3093.

32.05 AnnotationService on the state through the attorney general, rather than the Department of Transportation, was sufficient service under sub. (9). DOT v. Peterson, 226 Wis. 2d 623, 594 N.W.2d 765 (1999), 97-2718.

32.05 AnnotationWhen through inadvertent error the award of damages was attached to the notice of application under sub. (9), the award was not a part of the application, and it was error to declare the application a nullity and to withdraw the assignment of the application from the county condemnation committee. Schoenhofen v. DOT, 231 Wis. 2d 508, 605 N.W.2d 249 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0629.

32.05 AnnotationFiling of an award is complete, and the 60-day appeal period under sub. (10) (a) begins to run, when the commission has filed its award with the circuit court clerk and the clerk has mailed and recorded the award under s. 32.08 (6) (b). Dairyland Fuels, Inc. v. State, 2000 WI App 129, 237 Wis. 2d 467, 614 N.W.2d 829, 99-1296.

32.05 AnnotationConsistent with Peterson, 226 Wis. 2d 623 (1999), service on the state through the attorney general, rather than the Department of Transportation, was sufficient service under sub. (10). Dairyland Fuels, Inc. v. State, 2000 WI App 129, 237 Wis. 2d 467, 614 N.W.2d 829, 99-1296.