Citation Numbers: 71 Op. Att'y Gen. 180
Judges: BRONSON C. La FOLLETTE, Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/4/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
JAMES J. GOSLING, Secretary Department of Industry, Labor andHuman Relations
You have requested my opinion as to what constitutes an "ownership interest" under the State Relocation Assistance Act. In a letter dated February 4, 1982, your predecessor explained the situation, which provides the basis for your present concern, as follows:
[It is] our view that a tenant business having a real property ownership interest (e.g. one having a long-term lease which is acquired) should be considered as an owner-occupant business for relocation purposes and would be entitled to benefits provided under s.
32.19 (4m)(a).Our position is a key factor preventing our approval of a relocation plan submitted by the City of Milwaukee for a major downtown redevelopment project. This project will displace a number of tenant businesses having what we feel are substantial real property interests. The City's position is that all tenant-businesses, regardless of the fact that they may possess a substantial ownership interest in the land being acquired, should be treated as tenant-occupants. They argue, for example, that even a tenant having a remaining leasehold of 15 years who receives compensation for the value of this lease as part of the award should be classified as a tenant entitled only to a four year rent differential and a maximum payment of $30,000 pursuant *Page 181 to s.
32.19 (4m)(b). It is our belief that a tenant having this kind of property interest is more properly defined as an owner-occupant and should be entitled to a differential payment computed on the rent differential over a 15 year period with a maximum payment of $50,000 as provided under s.32.19 (4m)(a).
Under the State Relocation Assistance Act you cannot treat a tenant as an owner.
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Thus, we have six acts of the Legislature which define tenants and owners and prescribe specific and separate benefits for each classification. There simply is no legal basis for ignoring this clear intent of the Legislature.
It is generally accepted that a "tenant" is one who has possession of property by the written (lease) or oral permission of the owner. An "owner" is one who has legal title to the real estate. The common and ordinary meaning of these words hardly need further elaboration or explanation.
In the absence of ambiguity there is no legal basis for agency interpretation. Trojan v. Board of Regents,
It is implicit in your letter that you feel there is possible inequality in the operation of these statutes. In this regard you ask that I address any constitutional issues that may exist.
Inequality does not defeat a statute if there is a reasonable basis for the different treatment or, in other words, the classification. State v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.,
The purpose of the Relocation Act is set forth in sec.
The legislature declares that it is in the public interest that persons displaced by any public project be fairly compensated by payment for the property acquired and other losses hereinafter described and suffered as the result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.
The losses suffered by an owner are different in kind from the losses sustained by a tenant. These differences form a reasonable basis for the classifications adopted by the Legislature.
Also, treatment of tenants is not necessarily less generous or fair than treatment of ownership interests. For example, a tenant, whose leasehold interest has been acquired, is entitled to the fair market value of his lease. Maxey v. RedevelopmentAuthority of Racine,
In any event, your agency cannot adopt a rule that would be contrary to the clear intent of the Legislature.
BCL:CAB
State v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. , 72 Wis. 2d 727 ( 1976 )
Stanhope v. Brown County , 90 Wis. 2d 823 ( 1979 )
State Ex Rel. Real Est. Exam. Bd. v. Gerhardt , 39 Wis. 2d 701 ( 1968 )
Maxey v. Redevelopment Authority of Racine , 94 Wis. 2d 375 ( 1980 )
Trojan v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin ... , 100 Wis. 2d 53 ( 1980 )