Based in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Michelle E. Martin is a distinguished partner at Axley Brynelson, LLP, in Madison, and an integral member of the firm's management team. Basing her practice in the Milwaukee/Waukesha metropolitan area and Wisconsin statewide, her legal practice encompasses a broad spectrum of sectors with a primary focus on real estate and business law. She brings a wealth of experience to her role, particularly in the realms of condemnation and eminent domain, where she represents clients in matters involving electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines and highway developments. Her real estate acumen extends to land use and zoning, easements, tax assessments and the development, leasing and transaction of commercial and industrial properties.
In her business law practice, Ms. Martin is well-versed in the formation and structuring of businesses, mergers and acquisitions, and the drafting and negotiation of contracts. Her comprehensive legal services further cover estate planning, including the preparation of wills, trusts and powers of attorney, as well as overseeing probate proceedings and litigation.
Ms. Martin’s legal experience is backed by a solid educational foundation. She graduated cum laude from Marquette University Law School with a Juris Doctor degree and holds a Bachelor of Science in business administration with a minor in economics from Trinity University. She also studied at Franklin College in Lugano, Switzerland. She is admitted to practice in the State Courts of Wisconsin and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.
Having extensive professional affiliations, Ms. Martin is a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Wisconsin and the Dane County Bar Association. She has had significant involvement with the Waukesha County Bar Association, where she served on the board of directors and was president.
Throughout her career, Ms. Martin has earned numerous accolades for her legal prowess and dedication. She has been recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for several years and was named the Waukesha County Bar Association’s Distinguished Member in 2015. Her commitment to excellence is also reflected in her Distinguished* peer-review rating through Martindale-Hubbell.
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer-review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.
Practice areas
Eminent Domain, Business/Corporate, Estate & Trust Litigation, Land Use/Zoning, Real Estate: Business, Securities & Corporate Finance
Focus areas
Business Formation and Planning, Business Organizations, Condominiums & Cooperatives, Contracts, Landlord/Tenant, Limited Liability Companies, Mortgage & Refinance, Partnership, Securities Law, Short Sale, Sub-chapter S Corporations, Will Contests
- 30% Eminent Domain
- 30% Business/Corporate
- 10% Estate & Trust Litigation
- 10% Land Use/Zoning
- 10% Real Estate: Business
- 10% Securities & Corporate Finance
First Admitted: 1992, Wisconsin
Professional Webpage: https://www.axley.com/attorney/michelle-martin/
Bar/Professional Activity: - Member, American Bar Association
- Federal Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
- Federal Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- Member, State Bar of Wisconsin
- Member, Waukesha County Bar Association- Board of Directors, 2002 - 2015- President, 2011 - 2012- Past President, Young Lawyers Division
- Member, Dane County Bar Association
- Commissioner, Waukesha County Condemnation Commission
- Member, Appraisal Institute Wisconsin Chapter Condemnation Symposium Board
- Plan Commission, Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin
- Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin
Honors/Awards: - Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© (2021-2025 Edition) – Real Estate Law, The Best Lawyers in America
- Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© (2024-2025 Edition) - Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships), The Best Lawyers in America
- Named the Waukesha County Bar Association's Distinguished Member (2015), Distinguished Member, Waukesha County Bar Association, 2015
- Named to the 2007 Wisconsin Rising Stars List (Primary Area of Practice: Land Use Law), Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2007
- Martindale-Hubbell DistinguishedSM Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™, Martindale-Hubbell
Educational Background: - Franklin College, Lugano, Switzerland
- B.S., Business Administration, Minor in Economics, Trinity University
Firm News (Newsletters): - One of the reasons individuals own their investment real estate through a corporation or limited liability company is to take advantage of the limited liability those entities provide. However, in certain circumstances the liability may not be limited at all, and the individuals could be held personally accountable for certain actions., In Commercial Real Estate Transactions, Limited Liability May Not Be So Limited, Business, Commerical Real Estate
- In prior posts, A New Wisconsin Court of Appeals Decision Leaves Condemnors Scratching Their Heads and Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. State Department of Transportation Update, we discussed the Court of Appeals’ disconcerting decision in Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. On April 1, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision in its entirety., Wisconsin Supreme Court Restores Reason in Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Land Use, Zoning
- If a sports franchise wants to relocate, it must get the permission of its league. But, what happens when the city that it wants to leave objects? How far can a city go to keep its team? Can it use its eminent domain powers to acquire the team and keep it in the city?, Throwing the Challenge Flag: Can States Use Eminent Domain to Keep Sports Teams from Moving?, Land Use, Zoning
- One of President Donald J. Trump’s campaign promises was to build a wall on the U.S./Mexico border. He promised that it would be built quickly and that Mexico would pay for it. When most people think of the costs to build the Border Wall, they think of the costs of the construction, such as the labor and materials. What they do not think of, however, is the cost associated with acquiring the land needed for the Border Wall. Not only will the acquisition costs be expensive, but the acquisition itself will also be time consuming and not without opposition., Before the Border Wall is Built the Government Needs a Place to Build It, Land Use, Zoning
- Special benefits under the law are addressed in two contexts – actions involving just compensation under the eminent domain statutes (Wis. Stat. Ch. 32) and actions involving special assessments under Wis. Stat. Ch. 66. Under eminent domain law, if the landowner’s property has received a “special benefit” as a result of the public improvement, the amount of the special benefit offsets the amount of just compensation the condemnor must pay. Separately, municipalities may levy a special assessment on property benefitted by municipal improvements pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.0701 et seq., but the value of the special benefit cannot be recovered twice., Special Benefits: One Phrase, Two Meanings, Eminent Domain, Condemnation, Land Use
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently decided Hoffer Properties, LLC v. State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, a case involving the elimination of a property’s direct access points to a controlled-access highway. In Hoffer, the Wisconsin DOT took two actions: (1) eliminated Hoffer’s direct access to State Trunk Highway 19 in Jefferson County, Wisconsin; and (2) acquired a portion of Hoffer’s property to extend a road to be able to connect the Hoffer property to Highway 19. Hoffer sought compensation not only for the portion of the property that it acquired but also for the elimination of its direct access to the highway., "Controlled-Access Highway" Allow the DOT to Control More Than Just the Highway, Land Use, Zoning
- What happens when a condemnor offers to pay more for a taking than its appraiser found for damages? Most landowners would be pleased. In this case, the landowner apparently was not, claiming the condemnor failed to base its jurisdictional offer on the appraisal amount because the offer was higher than the appraisal. Thus, the argument was that the condemnor failed to follow the statutory requirement to provide an appraisal upon which the jurisdictional offer is based. The Court of Appeals was unimpressed., Raising Issues of Statutory Compliance...And No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, Land Use, Zoning, Condemnation
- The blog www.inversecondemnation.com recently posted an article explaining the Utah Supreme Court, in Utah Dep’t of Transportation v. Carlson, No. 20120414 (June 24, 2014), addressed the issue of whether or not the Utah DOT could take excess land in order to avoid a dispute regarding severance damages. In that case, the Utah DOT took all 15 acres from the landowner, even though it only needed 1.2 acres for the road project. While the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the Utah statutes allow for the taking of excess lands, it remanded the case back to the trial court to address the issue of whether or not the taking of the excess lands satisfies the “public use” element of the federal and state’s constitutions (private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation)., Takings Cannot Be Too Large or Too Small: They Must Be "Just Right', Land Use, Zoning
- It is a natural assumption that if a municipality is going to impose conditions on the granting of a building permit that the conditions must be reasonably related to the permit or else the conditions are not constitutional. But, a California court has held that if the condition that is being imposed does not unconstitutionally take something from the landowner, then it does not matter if the condition is reasonably related to the permit or not., If a Permit Condition is Not a Compensable Taking, It Is Constitutional, Land Use, Zoning
- A permitted use is a use for a property that is intended and allowed as long as the landowner meets all of the other requirements of the particular zoning category. A conditional use is a use for a property that is conditioned upon certain requirements. In the latter, the landowner applies for a conditional use permit (“CUP”). If the CUP is approved, it is granted subject to conditions, and those conditions become part of the CUP. If those conditions are violated, a process exists to revoke it., In Minnesota, a Legal Non-Conforming Use is Not Terminated by Issuing or Revoking a Conditional Use Permit, Land Use, Zoning
- The uses of the lands within a zoning designation generally fall into one of two categories: permitted and conditional. Most property owners do not give a second thought as to how the use of their property was approved so long as they get to use it the way they intended. But, whether the use is permitted or conditional can affect the future value of the land., Permitted & Conditional Uses: One of These Things Is Not Like the Other, Land Use, Zoning
- The uses of the lands within a zoning designation generally fall into one of two categories: permitted and conditional. Most property owners do not give a second thought as to how the use of their property was approved so long as they get to use it the way they intended. But, whether the use is permitted or conditional can affect the future value of the land., When it Comes to the Various Uses Under a Zoning Designation, One of These Things is Not Like the Other, Land Use, Zoning
- We all know that the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Additionally, the government cannot coerce people into giving up their constitutional rights, such as conditioning a person’s receipt of a governmental benefit on the waiver of a constitutionally protected right. At what point do unconstitutional conditions of a land use permit constitute a taking, and does it matter whether the permit is issued with conditions or denied because the developer refused to accept the conditions imposed? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed these issues in a decision earlier this year., When is an Unconstitutional Condition of a Governmental Land Use Permit a Taking?, Land Use, Zoning
- My first post regarding Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., ____ U.S. ____, 133 S.Ct. 2586, 186 L.Ed.2d 697 (2013), focuses on the first issue addressed by the Court: the point at which an unconstitutional condition of a land use permit constitutes a taking and the effect of the manner in which the condition is imposed. This post centers on the second issue addressed by the Court: whether or not the essential nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan and Dolan apply where a condition of granting a land use permit is strictly monetary in nature., When are "Monetary Exactions" as a Condition of a Land Use Permit Constitutional?, Land Use, Zoning
Office location for Michelle E. Martin
N17W24222 Riverwood Dr
Suite 250
Waukesha, WI 53188
Phone: 262-888-5724
Selected to Rising Stars: 2007 
