Case Title: Saint John's Communities, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP001696

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2022 WI 69 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP1696 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Saint John's Communities, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
     v. 
City of Milwaukee, 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS  
Reported at 399 Wis. 2d 729, 967 N.W.2d 151 
PDC No: 2021 WI App 77 - Published  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 22, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 6, 2022   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Jeffrey A. Conen   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
ZIEGLER, C.J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court.   
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Alan H. Marcuvitz, Andrea H. Roschke, and von Briesen & 
Roper, S.C., Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Alan H. 
Marcuvitz.  
 
For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief filed by 
Allison N. Flanagan, assistant city attorney, with whom on the 
brief was Tearman Spencer, city attorney. There was an oral 
argument by Allison N. Flanagan, assistant city attorney.  
 
 
 
2022 WI 69 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2020AP1696 
(L.C. No. 
2020CV578) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Saint John's Communities, Inc., 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
City of Milwaukee, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
NOV 22, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ZIEGLER, C.J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court. 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   This is a review of 
a published decision of the court of appeals, Saint John's 
Communities, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2021 WI App 77, 399 
Wis. 2d 729, 967 N.W.2d 151, reversing the Milwaukee County 
circuit court's1 order denying the City of Milwaukee's ("City") 
motion to dismiss Saint John's Communities' ("Saint John's") 
action for recovery of unlawful taxes under Wis. Stat. § 74.35 
                                                 
1 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen presided. 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
2 
 
(2019-20).2  The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Saint 
John's § 74.35 claim was procedurally deficient because Saint 
John's did not first pay the tax before filing its claim.  We 
affirm. 
¶2 
Saint John's argues that it properly filed a claim for 
recovery of unlawful taxes according to all procedures required 
under Wis. Stat. § 74.35.  According to Saint John's, § 74.35 
contains no requirement that taxpayers first pay the challenged 
tax prior to filing a claim for recovery of unlawful taxes 
against the City.  It argues that the only temporal requirements 
are that taxpayers both pay the challenged tax and file the 
claim by January 31 of the year in which the tax is payable.  As 
a result, Saint John's argues that the circuit court properly 
denied the City's motion to dismiss, and that the court of 
appeals erred in reversing that decision.  
¶3 
We conclude that Saint John's claim for recovery of 
unlawful taxes was procedurally deficient.  According to Wis. 
Stat. § 74.35(2)(a), "[a] person aggrieved by the levy and 
collection of an unlawful tax assessed against his or her 
property may file a claim to recover the unlawful tax against 
the taxation district which collected the tax."  The plain 
language of this statute requires Saint John's to first pay the 
challenged tax or any authorized installment payment3 prior to 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2019-20 version unless otherwise indicated. 
3 For ease of reading, we refer to payments of a tax both in 
full and in installments as payments of "the tax." 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
3 
 
filing a claim.  If Saint John's has not yet paid the tax, then 
Saint John's is not "aggrieved by the levy and collection of an 
unlawful tax," and there is no paid tax to "recover."  Saint 
John's did not make any payment of the challenged tax before it 
filed its § 74.35 claim.  Therefore, Saint John's § 74.35 claim 
was procedurally deficient, and the circuit court erred in 
denying the City's motion to dismiss.  We affirm the court of 
appeals' decision. 
I.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
¶4 
The relevant facts are not in dispute.  Saint John's 
owns an age-restricted continuing care retirement community 
located on a single parcel in the City of Milwaukee (the 
"Property").  For tax years 2010 through 2018, the City 
recognized the Property as fully exempt from property taxation 
under Wis. Stat. § 70.11.  
¶5 
In 2018, Saint John's began a project to renovate and 
expand the Property.  Saint John's built new facilities in an 
area of the Property previously used for parking, and it 
demolished its existing facilities.  In 2019, the City Assessor 
determined this was a new use of the Property and notified Saint 
John's that the City no longer considered the Property to be 
tax-exempt.4  
                                                 
4 Although Saint John's timely filed an appeal with the City 
Board of Review challenging the assessment as excessive, it 
failed to file an exemption request by the March 1, 2019 
deadline.  The City and Saint John's disagree as to whether 
Saint John's 
was 
required 
to 
file 
an 
exemption 
request.  
However, this issue is not a part of our review.  
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
4 
 
¶6 
On November 8, 2019, Saint John's filed a claim to 
recover unlawful taxes pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 74.35.  The City 
informed Saint John's that its claim was premature because the 
City had not yet levied the tax, and because Saint John's had 
not yet paid the challenged tax and was therefore not "aggrieved 
by the levy and collection of an unlawful tax" under § 74.35(2).  
The City levied the tax on November 27, 2019.  Saint John's 
filed a second § 74.35 claim on December 5, 2019, the same day 
the City issued the 2019 property tax bill to Saint John's.  At 
this point, Saint John's still had not paid the challenged tax. 
¶7 
At the recommendation of the City Attorney, the City 
disallowed Saint John's claim on January 21, 2020, because 
Saint John's did not pay the challenged tax prior to filing its 
Wis. Stat. § 74.35 claim.  The next day, Saint John's paid the 
first installment of its 2019 property tax bill.   
¶8 
On January 22, 2020, Saint John's commenced this 
lawsuit against the City, alleging claims under Wis. Stat. 
§§ 74.35, 74.33, 74.41, the Uniformity Clause of the Wisconsin 
Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The claim involving Wis. 
Stat. § 74.35 is the only claim before us.  
¶9 
On February 7, 2020, the City filed a motion to 
dismiss Saint John's lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted.  See Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6.  
The City argued that Saint John's Wis. Stat. § 74.35 claim for 
recovery of an unlawful tax was procedurally deficient because 
Saint John's did not first pay the tax before filing its claim.  
Saint John's argued that its claim was not procedurally 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
5 
 
deficient because there is no requirement in § 74.35 that the 
tax be paid before filing a claim.  In a written decision dated 
August 5, 2020, the circuit court denied the City's motion in 
part.5   
¶10 On April 9, 2020, before the court issued its written 
decision denying the City's motion to dismiss, Saint John's 
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the merits of its 
claim.  Saint John's argued that the property tax was unlawful 
because the Property was tax-exempt, and that Saint John's was 
not required to submit a new exemption application.  The City 
opposed the motion, arguing that Saint John's failed to timely 
file an exemption application.  On September 8, 2020, the 
circuit court held a hearing on the motion and granted partial 
summary judgment in favor of Saint John's based on its claims 
under Wis. Stat. §§ 74.35(1) and 74.33(1)(c), ordering a refund 
of the 2019 taxes with interest.  The circuit court issued a 
written order to this effect on September 24, 2020. 
¶11 The City appealed both the August 5, 2020 order 
denying the City's motion to dismiss and the September 24, 2020 
order granting partial summary judgment to Saint John's.  The 
court of appeals reversed the circuit court's order granting 
partial summary judgment and remanded the matter to the circuit 
court with direction to grant the City's motion to dismiss in 
full.  Saint John's Communities, Inc., 399 Wis. 2d 729, ¶27.  
                                                 
5 The circuit court partially granted the City's motion to 
dismiss as to Saint John's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
6 
 
The court of appeals reasoned that the City's motion to dismiss 
should have been granted because Saint John's filed its claim 
without first paying the challenged tax, making the claim 
procedurally deficient.  Id., ¶26. 
¶12 Saint John's petitioned this court for review of its 
claim under Wis. Stat. § 74.35, which we granted.  
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶13 In this case, we review a motion to dismiss for 
failure to state a claim.  "Whether a complaint states a claim 
upon which relief can be granted is a question of law for our 
independent review; however, we benefit from discussions of the 
court of appeals and circuit court."  Data Key Partners v. 
Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, ¶17, 356 Wis. 2d 665, 849 
N.W.2d 693.  "When we review a motion to dismiss, factual 
allegations in the complaint are accepted as true for purposes 
of our review.  However, legal conclusions asserted in a 
complaint 
are 
not 
accepted . . . ." 
 
Id., 
¶18 
(citation 
omitted). 
¶14 This case also presents a question of statutory 
interpretation.  "Interpretation of a statute is a question of 
law that we review de novo, although we benefit from the 
analyses of the circuit court and the court of appeals."  Est. 
of Miller v. Storey, 2017 WI 99, ¶25, 378 Wis. 2d 358, 903 
N.W.2d 759.  "[S]tatutory interpretation 'begins with the 
language of the statute.  If the meaning of the statute is 
plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry.'  Statutory language is 
given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
7 
 
technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their 
technical or special definitional meaning."  State ex rel. Kalal 
v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 
681 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted) (quoting Seider v. O'Connell, 
2000 WI 76, ¶43, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659).  "[S]tatutory 
language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not 
in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language 
of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to 
avoid absurd or unreasonable results."  Id., ¶46.  Additionally, 
"[s]tatutory language is read where possible to give reasonable 
effect to every word, in order to avoid surplusage."  Id.  
"Where statutory language is unambiguous, there is no need to 
consult extrinsic sources of interpretation, such as legislative 
history."  Id.    
III.  ANALYSIS 
¶15 On appeal, Saint John's argues its Wis. Stat. § 74.35 
complaint properly stated a claim and that all procedural 
requirements under § 74.35 were met.  According to Saint John's, 
§ 74.35 contains no requirement that a taxpayer must first pay 
the tax prior to filing a recovery claim against the taxation 
district. 
 
Saint 
John's 
argues 
that 
the 
only 
temporal 
requirement is that the tax be "timely paid," that is, by 
January 31.  We disagree.  We conclude that the plain language 
of § 74.35 requires a taxpayer to pay the challenged tax prior 
to filing a claim for recovery of unlawful taxes against a 
taxation district.  Because Saint John's did not pay the 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
8 
 
challenged tax prior to filing its claim, Saint John's claim was 
procedurally deficient.  § 74.35(2)(a).   
 
A.  Whether A Taxpayer Must Pay Before Filing  
A Recovery Claim. 
¶16 Wisconsin Stat. § 74.35 establishes the exclusive 
procedure for taxpayers to "claim that property is exempt" from 
taxation.6 
 
§ 74.35(2m) 
("A 
claim 
that 
property 
is 
exempt . . . may be made only in an action under this section. 
Such a claim may not be made by means of an action under 
s. 74.33 
or 
an 
action 
for 
a 
declaratory 
judgment 
under 
s. 806.04.").7   
¶17 Wisconsin Stat. § 74.35(2), titled "Claims against 
taxation district," states, "A person aggrieved by the levy and 
collection of an unlawful tax assessed against his or her 
property may file a claim to recover the unlawful tax against 
the taxation district which collected the tax."  § 74.35(2)(a) 
(emphases added).  Section 74.35(2)(a) requires that persons who 
"may file a claim" must have been "aggrieved" by both the "levy" 
and "collection" of the assessed tax.  A person cannot be 
"aggrieved" by the "collection" of an unlawful tax unless the 
                                                 
6 This is not the exclusive procedure for claims that 
property is exempt from taxation under either Wis. Stat. 
§ 70.11(21) or (27), neither of which apply to this case.  
7 Where Wis. Stat. § 74.35 uses the term "claim," it is 
referring only to a claim filed with the taxation district as 
opposed to a complaint filed with the circuit court.  The 
statute uses the term "action" to refer to the latter.  See 
§ 74.35(2m), (3).  
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
9 
 
tax has actually been collected.8  See Aggrieved, The American 
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 34 (3d ed. 1992) 
(defining "aggrieved" as "[t]reated unjustly, as by denial of or 
infringement upon one's legal rights"); Collection, id. at 372 
(defining "collection" as "[t]he act . . . of collecting").9   
¶18 Once a person has been "aggrieved by the levy and 
collection" of a tax, that person "may file a claim to recover 
the unlawful tax."  Wis. Stat. § 74.35(2)(a).  "Recover" 
connotes that the tax has already been paid.  One cannot 
recover——that is, "get back," "regain," or be "compensate[d] 
for"——a tax that has not been paid.  Recover, The American 
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, supra ¶17, at 1511.   
                                                 
8 Saint John's asserts that focusing on the "collection" 
requirement makes the terms "levy" and "assessed" meaningless.  
To the contrary, our interpretation gives full meaning to each 
term in the statute.  Wisconsin Stat. § 74.35(2)(a) permits 
claims by persons "aggrieved by the levy and collection of an 
unlawful tax assessed" (emphasis added).  The statute uses 
conjunctive language, requiring that the tax must have first 
been assessed, levied, and collected to file a claim.  See 
Antonin 
Scalia 
& 
Bryan 
A. 
Garner, 
Reading 
Law: 
The 
Interpretation 
of 
Legal 
Texts 
116 
(2012) 
(conjunctive/disjunctive canon).   
9 An alternative definition for "collection" is the "process 
of collecting."  Collection, The American Heritage Dictionary of 
the English Language 372 (3d ed. 1992).  However, Wis. Stat. 
§ 74.35(a) most naturally refers to the act of collecting, not 
the process, because the statute separately states the other 
steps of the collection process:  "levy and collection of an 
unlawful tax assessed" (emphases added). 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
10 
 
¶19 The plain interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 74.35 is that 
a taxpayer must first pay the tax before filing a claim.10  
Otherwise, the taxpayer is not yet "aggrieved by the levy and 
collection of an unlawful tax," and there is no unlawful tax to 
"recover."  § 74.35(2)(a).  This conclusion is further supported 
by how interest is calculated pursuant to § 74.35.  Section 
74.35(4) states, "The amount of a claim filed under sub. (2) or 
an action commenced under sub. (3) may include interest computed 
from the date of filing the claim against the taxation district, 
at the rate of 0.8 percent per month."11  In other words, any 
                                                 
10 A taxpayer need not pay a tax in full before filing a 
claim.  Wisconsin Stat. § 74.35(5)(c) states, "No claim may be 
filed or maintained under this section unless the tax for which 
the claim is filed, or any authorized installment payment of the 
tax, is timely paid . . . ."  Additionally, counsel for the City 
said at oral argument, "At minimum, [Saint John's] had to choose 
to pay their tax in full or make their first installment 
payment.  Once that act occurred, then . . . they can file the 
claim."  It is therefore sufficient to timely pay an authorized 
installment before filing a claim. 
11 Wisconsin Stat. § 74.35(4) was recently amended to read 
as follows:  
The amount of a claim filed under sub. (2) or an 
action commenced under sub. (3) may include interest 
at the average annual discount rate determined by the 
last auction of 6-month U.S. treasury bills before the 
date of filing the claim per day for the period 
between the time when the tax was due and the date 
that the claim was paid.   
2021 Wis. Act 162, § 1 (to take effect January 1, 2023).  
However, this amendment does not impact our analysis because it 
was not in effect at the time the tax at issue was assessed or 
levied.  See Brown County v. Brown Cnty. Taxpayers Ass'n, 2022 
WI 13, ¶2 n.2, 400 Wis. 2d 781, 971 N.W.2d 491. 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
11 
 
interest awarded is calculated "from the date of filing the 
claim," not from the date the tax was paid.  § 74.35(4).  If a 
taxpayer could file a claim before paying the tax, there would 
be no sum paid upon which interest could accrue.  A taxpayer 
would receive a windfall interest payment on funds still in the 
taxpayer's possession.  Requiring a taxpayer to pay the tax 
before filing a claim ensures that taxpayers can receive 
interest payments only on sums they actually paid.  This further 
supports that the most reasonable reading of § 74.35 as a whole 
is that a taxpayer must pay the tax before filing a claim. 
¶20 In sum, the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 74.35(2)(a) 
requires taxpayers to first pay the challenged tax prior to 
filing a claim for recovery of unlawful taxes with the taxation 
district.   
B.  Saint John's Arguments 
¶21 Saint 
John's 
first 
argues 
that 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 74.35(2)(a) does not impose any temporal requirement for when 
a taxpayer must pay the tax.  Instead, according to Saint 
John's, subsec. (2)(a) is "merely an introductory provision, 
orienting the reader to the general subject matter (unlawful 
taxes) and parties (taxpayer and municipality)."  This argument 
fails to "give reasonable effect to every word" and effectively 
reads the first half of subsec. (2)(a) out of the statute.  
Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46; see also James v. Heinrich, 2021 WI 
58, ¶23, 397 Wis. 2d 517, 960 N.W.2d 350 (quoting Antonin Scalia 
& Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal 
Texts 174 (2012)) (alterations in original) ("[T]he courts 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
12 
 
must . . . lean in favor of a construction which will render 
every word operative, rather than one which may make some idle 
and nugatory.").  Rather, subsec. (2)(a) is a substantive 
provision 
that 
defines 
who 
"may 
file 
a 
claim." 
 
This 
interpretation properly gives effect to subsec. (2)(a) rather 
than disregarding it as "merely an introductory provision."  
¶22 Saint John's also argues that Wis. Stat. § 74.35 
contains procedural requirements in subsecs. (2)(b), (5)(a), and 
(5)(c).  It contends that if there were a requirement that taxes 
be paid before filing a claim, one of these subsections "would 
be a logical location for the legislature to have inserted such 
a requirement."  Section 74.35(2)(b) lists certain "conditions" 
that "[a] claim filed under this section shall meet."12  Section 
                                                 
12 A claim filed under Wis. Stat. § 74.35 "shall meet all of 
the following conditions": 
1.  Be in writing. 
2.  State the alleged circumstances giving rise 
to the claim, including the basis for the claim as 
specified in s. 74.33(1)(a) to (e). 
3.  State as accurately as possible the amount of 
the claim. 
4.  Be signed by the claimant or his or her 
agent. 
5.  Be served on the clerk of the taxation 
district in the manner prescribed in s. 801.11(4). 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
13 
 
74.35(5)(a) requires that "a claim under this section shall be 
filed by January 31 of the year in which the tax is payable,"13 
and § 74.35(5)(c) states, "No claim may be filed or maintained 
under this section unless the tax for which the claim is filed, 
or any authorized installment payment of the tax, is timely 
paid . . . ."  Nothing in the language of any of these 
subsections indicates that they are the exclusive temporal 
conditions taxpayers must satisfy, and reading them as such 
renders the language in § 74.35(2)(a) inoperative.  We decline 
to do so.   
¶23 Next, turning to surrounding statutes, Saint John's 
finds Wis. Stat. §§ 74.33 and 74.37, governing palpable error 
and excessive assessment claims respectively, to be informative.  
Saint John's alleges that neither of these statutes require 
taxpayers to first pay a tax before filing and that this means 
                                                                                                                                                             
§ 74.35(2)(b).  Saint John's interprets the third condition, 
"State as accurately as possible the amount of the claim," as 
evidence that a taxpayer need not first pay the tax because, if 
that were the case, the taxpayer would always know the exact 
amount because it is in the tax bill.  This argument conflates 
the amount stated in the tax bill with the "amount of the 
claim."  The claim amount will not always be the full amount 
stated in the tax bill where, for example, only a portion of the 
tax is challenged as unlawful.  See §§ 74.35(1), 74.33(1).   
13 Saint John's identifies the word "payable" as indicating 
that the tax need not have been previously paid.  Saint John's 
reads too much into this term.  "[P]ayable" identifies only the 
year in which a claim must be filed:  "the year in which the tax 
is payable."  Wis. Stat. § 74.35(5)(a). 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
14 
 
Wis. Stat. § 74.35 contains no such requirement either.14  
Although we may look to surrounding statutes to determine plain 
meaning, §§ 74.33 and 74.37 do not change our plain meaning 
analysis in this case. 
¶24 Wisconsin Stat. § 74.33 governing palpable error does 
not change our analysis of Wis. Stat. § 74.35 because, unlike 
§ 74.35, it contains no procedure at all for taxpayers to file a 
claim.  The two statutes also do not contain similar language.  
For example, Saint John's points to § 74.33's statement that 
"the governing body of the taxation district may refund or 
rescind in whole or in part any general property tax."  
§ 74.33(1).  It argues this statement supports that there is no 
requirement to pay a tax prior to filing a claim because the 
word "rescind" refers to unpaid amounts.  However, this language 
appears only in § 74.33, so it does not change our analysis of 
§ 74.35.  
¶25 Although Wis. Stat. § 74.37 governing claims of 
excessive assessment contains some similar language, we need not 
                                                 
14 Saint John's urges that "[t]his assertion must be treated 
as true for purposes of the City's motion to dismiss."  Even at 
the motion to dismiss stage, we are under no obligation to 
accept Saint John's assertions of law as true.  Data Key 
Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, ¶18, 356 
Wis. 2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693.  
Relatedly, Saint John's relies on Wis. Stat. § 74.35's 
prior version, Wis. Stat. § 74.73 (1985-86), which covered both 
claims for recovery of an unlawful tax and claims for excessive 
assessment.  That version required taxpayers to pay the tax 
before the filing deadline.  However, this requirement applied 
only to excessive assessment claims, so it does not inform our 
analysis of a recovery of unlawful taxes claim.    
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
15 
 
look to it for guidance either.  Section 74.35 is the exclusive 
procedure for recovering unlawful taxes on a property that is 
tax-exempt.  § 74.35(2m).  "[T]he legislature has recognized the 
distinction between claims of tax exemption and those of 
excessive assessment, and it has created a separate appeals 
process for excessive assessment cases."  Hermann v. Town of 
Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370, 391, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998).  The 
processes are not necessarily the same, so § 74.37 does not 
change our interpretation of § 74.35 in this case.  
¶26 Finally, Saint John's argues that requiring taxpayers 
to first pay the tax before filing a claim will lead to absurd 
results.  Saint John's characterizes this rule as forcing 
taxpayers to choose between forfeiting the "right to pay taxes 
up until January 31" and being put in the "precarious position 
of delaying payment of taxes until the last day for payment and 
filing the claim the same day."  We reject Saint John's 
invitation to engage in this results-based analysis.  The 
absurdity canon is reserved only for those interpretations that 
no reasonable person could intend, not interpretations that "may 
seem odd."  Scalia & Garner, supra ¶21, at 237 (quoting Exxon 
Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 565 
(2005)).  "The oddity or anomaly of certain consequences may be 
a perfectly valid reason for choosing one textually permissible 
interpretation over another, but it is no basis for disregarding 
or changing the text."  Id.  We refuse to disregard Wis. Stat. 
§ 74.35's plain and express meaning based on a result Saint 
John's considers undesirable. 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
16 
 
¶27 Because 
we 
conclude 
that 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 74.35 
unambiguously requires taxpayers to first pay the tax prior to 
filing a claim for recovery of unlawful taxes, we need not 
address Saint John's arguments regarding legislative history, 
construction 
of 
procedural 
requirements, 
and 
policy 
considerations.  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 ("Where statutory 
language is unambiguous, there is no need to consult extrinsic 
sources of interpretation . . . .").  We also decline to address 
Saint John's claim under the Uniformity Clause because it is 
undeveloped.  Wis. Conference Bd. of Trustees of United 
Methodist Church, Inc. v. Culver, 2001 WI 55, ¶38, 243 
Wis. 2d 394, 627 N.W.2d 469 (quoting Cemetery Servs., Inc. v. 
Dep't of Reg. & Licens., 221 Wis. 2d 817, 831, 586 N.W.2d 191 
(Ct. App. 1998)) ("Constitutional claims are very complicated 
from 
an 
analytic 
perspective, 
both 
to 
brief 
and 
to 
decide. . . . [W]e generally choose not to decide issues that 
are not adequately developed by the parties in their briefs."). 
C.  Failure To State A Claim 
¶28 Based on the facts Saint John's alleged in its 
complaint filed in circuit court, Saint John's failed to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted.  Saint John's filed its 
first Wis. Stat. § 74.35 claim on November 8, 2019.  Saint 
John's does not allege that it paid any of the challenged tax 
before filing.  Thereafter, the City notified Saint John's that 
the claim was premature because Saint John's had not yet paid 
the challenged tax.  On December 5, 2019, Saint John's filed a 
second claim with the City.  Again, Saint John's does not allege 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
17 
 
that it paid any of the challenged tax before filing this claim.  
Saint John's only alleges that it paid a portion of the tax on 
January 22, 2020, over a month after it filed its second § 74.35 
claim.  Based on these allegations, Saint John's § 74.35 claim 
was untimely because Saint John's was not yet "aggrieved by the 
levy and collection of an unlawful tax" and was unable to 
"recover" any tax at the time Saint John's filed the claim.  
§ 74.35(2)(a).  Accordingly, Saint John's failed to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted.    
IV.  CONCLUSION 
¶29 Saint John's argues that it properly filed a claim for 
recovery of unlawful taxes according to all procedures required 
under Wis. Stat. § 74.35.  According to Saint John's, § 74.35 
contains no requirement that taxpayers first pay the challenged 
tax prior to filing a claim for recovery of unlawful taxes 
against the City.  It argues that the only temporal requirements 
are that taxpayers both pay the challenged tax and file the 
claim by January 31 of the year in which the tax is payable.  As 
a result, Saint John's argues that the circuit court properly 
denied the City's motion to dismiss, and that the court of 
appeals erred in reversing that decision.  
¶30 We conclude that Saint John's claim for recovery of 
unlawful taxes was procedurally deficient.  According to Wis. 
Stat. § 74.35(2)(a), "[a] person aggrieved by the levy and 
collection of an unlawful tax assessed against his or her 
property may file a claim to recover the unlawful tax against 
the taxation district which collected the tax."  The plain 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
18 
 
language of this statute requires Saint John's to first pay the 
challenged tax or any authorized installment payment prior to 
filing a claim.  If Saint John's has not yet paid the tax, then 
Saint John's is not "aggrieved by the levy and collection of an 
unlawful tax," and there is no paid tax to "recover."  Saint 
John's did not make any payment of the challenged tax before it 
filed its § 74.35 claim.  Therefore, Saint John's § 74.35 claim 
was procedurally deficient, and the circuit court erred in 
denying the City's motion to dismiss.  We affirm the court of 
appeals' decision. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
No. 
2020AP1696   
 
 
 
1