Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Supreme Court arguments February 11, 2010

9:45 a.m. Konneker v. Romano (2008AP1546) review of the Court of Appeals decision on the issues:
On a motion for summary judgment, can the circuit court find that riparian rights, including the right to install a pier, were granted by an easement, where the easement was silent as to riparian rights; where there is no evidence of the original parties’ intent with regard to the scope of the easement; where there was no pier located on the easement, but there were piers located on the riparian servient estate which were used by prior easement holders; and where there is evidence that the primary use of the lake-access on which the easement lies is to enter the lake by boat?

Whether Wis. Stat. §§30.131 and 30.133 apply, and if so, what is the impact of those statutory sections on the issues in this case; see Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91, 242 Wis. 2d 722, 626 N.W.2d 78 rev. denied, 2001 WI 88, 246 Wis. 2d 168, 630 N.W.2d 221; Ellingsworth v. Swiggum, 195 Wis. 2d 142, 536 N.W.2d 112, rev. denied, ____ Wis. 2d ____, 537 N.W.2d 572 (1995).
Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts five new cases


10:45 a.m. Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc. (2008AP2028) review of the Court of Appeals decision, 2009 WI App 102, 770 N.W.2d 749, on the issues:
Does Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis. 2d 675, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996) allow holders of appurtenant easements to expand the use of those easements to access other unrelated lands, subject to a post-use analysis concerning the degree of “burden”?

Should there be a “home base” exception to allow an easement’s scope and purpose be expanded to new non-dominant land, so long as the easement holder touches the dominant “home base” before going to the non-dominant lands, and the easement holder does not actually own the new lands?
Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts five new cases


1:30 p.m. Estate of Sheppard v. Schleis (2009AP1021) bypass of the Court of Appeals granted November 3, 2009 on the issues:
Does Internal Revenue Code §2207B (26 U.S.C. 2207B) require a beneficiary to reimburse the estate for federal tax liability incurred on payable on death (POD) accounts?

When the deceased is intestate, does the doctrine of limited equitable apportionment require the beneficiary of POD accounts to pay both federal and Wisconsin estate taxes incurred on such non-probate property?

Is the beneficiary’s agreement to pay her proportional share of federal and Wisconsin estate taxes enforceable in either law or in equity?
Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts seven new cases