City Sues Resident Over Noncompliant Fence Ordinance Violation

In a recent legal battle, the City of Glendale successfully defended its stance against a resident’s noncompliant fence, culminating in a decisive court ruling. The case was filed by the City of Glendale in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2023 against Linda Reed, who later appealed the decision. On November 18, 2025, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the city.

The dispute began when the City of Glendale alleged that Linda Reed had erected a fence that violated local ordinances and encroached on her neighbor’s property. The city sought judicial intervention to have the fence removed at Reed’s expense. Despite Reed’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit and her requests for accommodations to attend hearings, including appearing via Zoom due to unspecified reasons, she failed to present any substantial evidence or attend critical court sessions. Her absence at these hearings played a pivotal role in the court’s decision-making process.

Reed argued that she was not given proper accommodations for attending court sessions and claimed that her case was not fully heard. However, records show that she was allowed to appear via Zoom for an initial conference but failed to do so effectively. When further proceedings were scheduled in person, Reed did not attend despite multiple warnings from Judge David L. Borowski about potential default judgments if she failed to appear.

The circuit court found Reed in default due to her absence and lack of response to motions filed by the city. The city’s evidence included affidavits from zoning officials and certified surveys confirming ordinance violations by Reed’s fence. In granting summary judgment, Judge Borowski noted Reed’s failure to engage meaningfully with court processes or present competent responses.

Following this judgment, the City amended its complaint with additional ordinance violation claims but later withdrew them after removing Reed’s fence and resolving other issues independently. Consequently, they requested dismissal of the case as moot since their objectives were achieved without further litigation.

Linda Reed’s appeal contested these outcomes, arguing procedural errors and lack of trial opportunity; however, appellate judges Colon, Donald, and Geenen affirmed the lower court’s rulings. They concluded that adequate notice and opportunities were provided for Reed to defend herself but were squandered through non-compliance with court orders.

Reed’s legal representation remains unmentioned throughout proceedings as she appeared pro se (representing herself). The appellate judges emphasized adherence to procedural rules and reinforced that litigants must comply with court schedules unless justified otherwise.

This case underscores critical aspects of civil procedure where failure to adhere can lead directly to unfavorable judgments regardless of underlying merits or defenses available had they been timely presented.

Attorneys involved remain unnamed within this document while Judges David L. Borowski presided over initial proceedings before appellate review by Judges Colon (P.J.), Donald & Geenen under Case ID No: 2024AP636.