Laserfiche WebLink
Norbert Scribner, Land Division Review <br />December 5, 2000 <br />• Page 2 <br />So far, so good. Things have gotten somewhat more complicated. Since Mr. <br />Patrick acquired parcels 38670, 38702 and 38722, he lost title to parcel 38702 in a <br />foreclosure action. This left him with two lots that are landlocked, those being <br />parcels 38670 and 38722. We agree that it is not in anyone's interest to have <br />landlocked parcels, least of all the owner's. Nevertheless, it is our position that <br />parcels 38670 and 38722 do not violate Chapter 75, since section 75.15 states that <br />Chapter 75 does not apply to transfers of interest in land by court order (which an <br />order of foreclosure is), or to mortgages. <br />Given this background, we have several questions: <br />1. Is it still your position that parcels 38722 and 38670 do not comply <br />with the Dane County land division regulations? If so, could you please identify the <br />regulations? <br />2. Is it still your position that parcels 38670 and 38722 do not comply <br />with the Dane County zoning ordinance? If so, could you please identify the <br />noncompliance? <br />3. Is it still your position, given the above history, that the subject <br />properties are considered to be "illegally created"? If so, can you cite authority for <br />this position and inform us of the consequences of owning a lot that is "illegally <br />created"? <br />4. If our client were to reacquire title to parcel 38702, is it your view that <br />any lack of compliance with the Dane County Land Division regulations and the <br />Dane County's zoning ordinances would be cured, and that any "illegality" would <br />also be cured? If not, can you please advise what more would need to be done? <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />Yours very truly, <br />esse S. Ishikawa <br />MADI SON\73110JSI:RM <br />cc Mr. William T. Patrick <br />