|
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
December 30, 2009
David
R. Schanker
Clerk of Court of Appeals
|
|
NOTICE
|
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
|
|
|
Appeal No.
|
|
|
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
|
IN COURT OF
APPEALS
|
|
|
DISTRICT IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin
ex rel. Stupar River LLC,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Town of Linwood Portage County
Board of Review,
Respondent-Respondent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Portage County: Thomas
T. Flugaur, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, Lundsten and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Stupar River LLC appeals
the order of the circuit court that affirmed the decision of the Town of Linwood Board of
Review. Stupar River
argues that property it owns was over-assessed in the years 2003, 2004, and
2005. In support of this argument, it
asserts that the property was properly assessed at its fair market value in
2006 and 2007 and, since that assessment was lower than the assessments for the
years 2003 through 2005, the earlier assessments must be too high. Because we conclude that the assessor’s
decision to reduce the assessment in 2006 was based on a reason independent of
the fair market value of the property, we affirm the order of the circuit
court.
Background
¶2 Stupar River owns the Wisconsin River Country Club in the
Town of Linwood. Stupar
River purchased the
property in 2001 for $830,000. The Town
of Linwood
assessed the property at $1,831,500. Stupar River
objected, and the Board of Review held a hearing. The Board denied the objection. Stupar
River then petitioned
the circuit court for a writ of certiorari.
The court reversed the Board of Review and remanded the matter to the
Board. The Board appealed, and we then
reversed the circuit court and reinstated the decision of the Board of
Review.
¶3 While the appeal was pending, the Town of Linwood did not reduce the assessment for
2003 and 2004. In 2005, the Town of Linwood assessed the
property at $1,893,400. Stupar River
again objected, a hearing was held, and once again the Board denied the
objection. Stupar River
again petitioned the court for review.
¶4 In 2006, the Town of Linwood
assessed the property at $1,435,900. Stupar River
did not challenge this assessment, but informed the circuit court that the
assessors had reduced the assessment to an amount that was consistent with the
amount Stupar River proposed in 2005. The circuit court then issued an order
directing the Town of Linwood
to reassess the property for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 or, in the
alternative, provide “a rational explanation as to why the property has
decreased in value.” In response to this
order, the Town of Linwood
submitted a letter from its assessor explaining why he reduced the assessment
for the property in 2006. The property
at issue was part of the commercial class.
The assessor stated:
The Department of Revenue’s major class comparison
report, which came out in 2005, showed that the commercial class was no longer
in line with the other classes of properties during that year. Because the difference was greater than 10%,
I felt an adjustment to the overall class needed to be made to bring it back in
line with the other classes of properties.
Rather than increase the value of the bulk of the classes I chose to reduce
commercial instead.
¶5 After receiving this letter and Stupar
River’s response, the circuit court
issued a decision stating that the Town of Linwood had provided a satisfactory reason
for the reduction in the assessment for the year 2006, and concluding that the
Town did not need to reassess the property for the years 2003 through
2005. It is from this decision that Stupar River
appeals.
Discussion
¶6 We review the Board of Review’s determination independent of
the circuit court’s determination. State
ex rel. Brighton Square Co. v. City of Madison,
178 Wis. 2d
577, 584, 504 N.W.2d 436 (Ct. App. 1993).
We do not have jurisdiction to disturb the findings and determinations
of a board of review, except when the board “acts in bad faith or exceeds its
jurisdiction.” Id. at 582. We may review only the following
considerations:
“(1) Whether the board kept within its jurisdiction;
(2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was
arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will and not its
judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make
the order or determination in question.”
Darcel, Inc. v. City of Manitowoc Bd. of Review, 137 Wis. 2d 623, 626, 405 N.W.2d 344 (1987)
(citation omitted). Our role is “to
determine, from the evidence presented to the board of review, whether the
valuation was made on the statutory basis.”
State ex rel. Flint Bldg. Co. v. Kenosha
County Bd.
of Review, 126 Wis.
2d 152, 156, 376 N.W.2d 364 (Ct. App.
1985). The assessor’s valuation is
presumed to be correct. Brighton Square,
178 Wis. 2d
at 582. We will not disturb the board’s
findings “if the evidence presented in favor of the assessment furnishes a
substantial basis for that valuation.” Id.
¶7 Stupar
River argues that,
because the Town concedes the fair market value of the property did not change
from 2003 to 2006, the 2006 assessment must represent the fair market value of
the property and, therefore, the earlier assessments were incorrect. The flaw in this argument is that the reason
for the reduction in the 2006 assessment had nothing to do with fair market
value.
¶8 The reduction in the 2006 assessment was not based on a change
in the fair market value of the property, but was based on an attempt to
equalize market value in response to a Wisconsin Department of Revenue
report. The assessor asserted that the
reduction in assessment was not because the properties had a lower fair market
value. Rather, the reduction was for a
reason independent of the fair market value.
Stupar River argues that the Town’s assessor
misunderstood the rules he was applying and that his methodology was “not
rational.” Even if Stupar River’s
expert is correct, however, this does not alter the fact that the Town’s
assessor was not changing the assessment based on fair market value.
¶9 In sum, Stupar
River’s attack on the
assessments hinges on the factual assumption that the Town’s assessor reduced
the property’s 2006 assessment to reflect its true fair market value. As the circuit court understood, that
assumption is incorrect. Consequently,
we affirm the order of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
(2007-08).