OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT WINNEBAGO COUNTY Branch 3 CITY OF MENASHA, WISCONSIN, - Plaintiffs, v. Case No. VILLAGE OF FOX CROSSING, WISCONSIN, TOWN OF MENASHA, WISCONSIN, Defendants. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, ANSWER TO CLAIMS FOR RELIEF, . AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COME the above-named Defendants, Village of Fox Crossing, Wisconsin and Town of Menasha, Wisconsin, by its attorneys, Herrling Clark Law Firm Ltd, namely Attorney Andrew J. Rossmeissl, and as and for an Answer and Af?rmative Defenses as to Plaintiff Complaint, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. The Answering Defendants lack suf?cient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 2. The Answering Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 2. 3. The Answering Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 3. 4. The Answering Defendants lack suf?cient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 5. The Answering Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 5. 6. The Answering Defendants speci?cally deny that the Intermunicipal Agreement establishes boundaries and, with respect to the other allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff Complaint, it is noted that said allegations are legal conclusions to which no response is required; accordingly, the same allegations are hereby denied and the Plaintiff is put strictly to proof thereon. 7. Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint, are legal conclusions to which no response is required; accordingly, the same allegations are hereby denied and the Plaintiff is put strictly to proof thereon. 8. Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is denied as ambiguous and the Plaintiff is put strictly to proof thereon; the Defendants af?rmatively allege that the portion of the lands that were formerly located in the Town of Menasha and incorporated into the Village of Fox Crossing on or about April 20, 2016 were not within the territory addressed by the Intermunicipal Agreement. 9. Paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint is denied as ambiguous and the Plaintiff 1s put strictly to proof thereon. 10. The Answering Defendants lack suf?cient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 11. The Answering Defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 11. 12. Paragraph 12 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is denied as ambiguous and the Plaintiff is put strictly to proof thereon. 13.: The Answering Defendants lack sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 14. The Answering Defendants lack suf?cient information to either admit or deny the I allegations in paragraph 14 of the Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 15. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 15 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 16. The Answering Defendants lack sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 17. The Answering Defendants lack suf?cient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. - 18. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained 1n paragraph 18 of the Plaintiff?s Complaint and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 19. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the Plaintiff Complaint and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. ANSWER TO CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1. That, the Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-19 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 2. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff?s Claims for Relief and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 3. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff 5 Claims for Relief and put the Plaintiff strictly-to proof thereon. 4. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff?s Claims for Relief and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. 5. The Answering Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff Claims for Relief and put the Plaintiff strictly to proof thereon. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. The Plaintiff lacks standing to bring its claims. 3. The Intermunicipal Agreement between the City of Menasha and the Town of Menasha is void and ultra vires, and never became effective in the ?rst instance due to the parties? failure to complete the required process pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes. 4. The Intermnnicipal Agreement between the City of Menasha and the Town of Menasha is void and ultra vires, as it lacks statutory authority and said lack of statutory authority is not curable pursuant to Wis. Stat. as said Intermunicipal Agreement was entered into after January 19, 2008. 5. Even if the Intermunicipal Agreement between the City of Menasha and the Town of Menasha was valid, there has been no breach of said agreement and the Intermunicipal Cooperation Agreement between the Village of Fox Crossing and the Town of Menasha is not contrary to the Intermunicipal Agreement between the City of Menasha and the Town of Menasha. 6. The sort of Intermunicipal Cooperation Agreement entered into between the Village of Fox Crossing and the Town of Menasha has been declared valid pursuant to City of Kaukauna vs. Village of Harrison, 2015 WI App. 73, 365 Wis.2d 181, 870 680. 7. The statute of limitations has passed on the corporation of the Village of Fox Crossing and said incorporation no longer may be challenged. 8. Wis. Stat. ?66.0301(6) does not contain any limitation on the extent of a permissible boundary line change between municipalities. 9. The Defendants reserve the right to plead additional af?rmative defenses as may be necessary as discovery reveals. 10. The af?rmative defenses set forth in Wis. Stat. 802.06(2) and 802.028) are incorporated herein by referenced so as to avoid waiver of the same pending further discovery and investigation. WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray that City of Menasha?s claims, causes of action, and lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice; the Defendants further request their costs, attorney fees, such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. . 7 Fax Dated this day of November, 2016. HERRLING CLARK LAW FIRM LTD., Attorneys for Defendants Andrew J. Rossmeissl P. O. ADDRESS: 800 North Drive Appleton, WI 54914 (920) 882-3219