Case Title: Noah's Ark Family Park v. Board of Review of the Village of Lake Delton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1996AP001074

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1998-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-1074 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
Noah's Ark Family Park, 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Board of Review of the Village of Lake Delton, 
Village of Lake Delton, and Frank Kaminski, 
Thomas Webb, Kay Mackesey, and Todd Nelson, in 
their representative capacities, 
 
Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  210 Wis. 2d 302, 565 N.W.2d 230 
 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1997) 
 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 26, 1998, April 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
December 2, 1997 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Sauk 
 
JUDGE: 
Patrick Taggart 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: BABLITCH, J., did not participate 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the defendants-respondents-petitioners there 
were briefs by Richard W. Cross, Jean M. Wilson and Cross, Jenks, 
Mercer & Maffei, Baraboo and oral argument by Richard W. Cross. 
 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant there was a brief by 
Harvey L. Temkin, William M. Conley, Marta T. Meyers and Foley & 
Lardner, Madison and oral argument by William M. Conley. 
 
No.  96-1074 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-1074 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Noah's Ark Family Park,  
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Review of the Village of Lake  
Delton, Village of Lake Delton, and Frank  
Kaminski, Thomas Webb, Kay Mackesey, and  
Todd Nelson, in their representative  
capacities,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents- 
          Petitioners.  
FILED 
 
FEB 26, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed and 
cause remanded. 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Noah's 
Ark Family Park v. Board of Review of Village of Lake Delton, 
210 Wis. 2d 302, 565 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1997), reversing a 
judgment of the Circuit Court for Sauk County, Patrick J. 
Taggart, Judge, and remanding the cause to the circuit court 
with directions.   
¶2 
The issue presented is whether the assessor's singling 
out of Noah's Ark Family Park for reassessment based on its 
recent sale, while intentionally refusing to reassess other 
commercial properties that were recently sold, constitutes an 
improper, arbitrary mode of assessment in violation of the 
No.  96-1074 
 
2 
uniformity clause of the Wisconsin constitution, when the 
refusal to reassess other properties was based on an erroneous 
view of the law.1  
¶3 
In 1995 the assessed value of the other commercial 
properties that had recently sold in the Village of Lake Delton 
was approximately 91% to 19% below their fair market values as 
demonstrated by their recent sale prices.  Stated another way, 
in 1995 the sales prices of the other commercial properties that 
had recently sold ranged from approximately 123% to 1125% of 
assessed values during the prior year.  
                     
1 Article VIII, § 1, of the Wisconsin constitution provides 
as follows: 
Rule 
of 
taxation 
uniform; income, 
privilege and 
occupation taxes.  The rule of taxation shall be 
uniform but the legislature 
may 
empower 
cities, 
villages or towns to collect and return taxes on real 
estate located therein by optional methods.  Taxes 
shall 
be 
levied 
upon 
such 
property 
with 
such 
classifications as to forests and minerals including 
or 
separate 
or 
severed 
from 
the 
land, 
as 
the 
legislature shall prescribe.  Taxation of agricultural 
land and undeveloped land, both as defined by law, 
need not be uniform with the taxation of each other 
nor 
with 
the 
taxation 
of 
other 
real 
property.  
Taxation of merchants' stock-in trade, manufacturers' 
materials and finished products, and livestock need 
not be uniform with the taxation of real property and 
other personal property, but the taxation of all such 
merchants' 
stock-in-trade, 
manufacturers' 
materials 
and finished products and livestock shall be uniform, 
except that the legislature may provide that the value 
thereof shall be determined on an average basis.  
Taxes may also be imposed on incomes, privileges and 
occupations, 
which 
taxes 
may 
be 
graduated 
and 
progressive, 
and 
reasonable 
exemptions 
may 
be 
provided.  
 
No.  96-1074 
 
3 
¶4 
The circuit court held that the Board of Review of the 
Village of Lake Delton did not violate the uniformity clause of 
the 
Wisconsin 
constitution 
and 
upheld 
the 
Board's 
1995 
assessment of Noah's Ark.  
¶5 
The court of appeals reversed the circuit court 
judgment and concluded that the assessment of Noah's Ark 
violated the uniformity clause and Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1)(1993-
94) because the assessor improperly failed to consider the value 
of other commercial properties based on their recent sales.  The 
court of appeals reversed the circuit court judgment and 
directed 
the 
Board 
to reassess Noah's Ark 
for 1995 by 
disregarding the evidence of the 1994 sale.  See Noah's Ark, 210 
Wis. 2d at 323-24. 
¶6 
For the reasons set forth by the court of appeals we 
conclude that the 1995 assessment of Noah's Ark violated the 
uniformity clause of the Wisconsin constitution.  We agree with 
the court of appeals that the appropriate remedy is to direct 
the Board to reassess Noah's Ark for 1995 by disregarding the 
1994 sale.2  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of 
appeals.  Moreover, we agree with the court of appeals 
discussion of the legal principles and do not repeat that 
                     
2 Noah's Ark requests that this court order on remand the 
return of the 1995 assessment to its 1994 level and refund the 
excessive property tax paid plus statutory interest.  If Noah's 
Ark is asking for a remedy different from that ordered by the 
court of appeals, we make clear that we are affirming the remedy 
ordered by the court of appeals.  The issue of refund of taxes 
is not before this court.  
No.  96-1074 
 
4 
discussion here.  Rather, we adopt the opinion of the court of 
appeals as the opinion of this court, supplemented by the 
comments below.  
¶7 
The court of appeals decision sets forth the relevant 
facts, and the parties do not dispute them.  The essential facts 
are as follows:  In 1994 Noah's Ark, a recreational amusement 
water park located in the Village of Lake Delton, was assessed 
at $4,890,200.  In March of that year Noah's Ark was sold.  The 
real estate transfer return reported the total value of Noah's 
Ark as $22.5 million.  In July 1995 the assessor of the Village 
of Lake Delton reassessed Noah's Ark at $18 million.  The 
assessor also reassessed Familyland, another amusement water 
park in the Village, at $4 million, an increase of $2.4 million 
from its 1994 assessment.  Other commercial properties in the 
Village that had been sold recently for sums far in excess of 
their assessed value were not reassessed for property tax 
purposes.  
¶8 
The assessor testified at the Board hearing, upon 
Noah's Ark's objection to the assessment, that he had not made 
adjustments for the other commercial properties that had 
recently sold because Noah's Ark and Familyland were unique 
properties.  He stated that he did not consider the other 
commercial properties to be comparable to the water parks.  The 
Board affirmed the assessment of Noah's Ark and reduced 
Familyland's assessment to its 1994 assessment.  The circuit 
court affirmed the Board's action.  The court of appeals 
reversed the judgment of the circuit court.   
No.  96-1074 
 
5 
¶9 
In this court, the Board disputes the decision of the 
court of appeals on three grounds.   
¶10 First, the Board asserts that in making a uniformity 
challenge, Noah's Ark must show that the undervalued properties 
are comparable properties.  The Board views comparability of 
other properties as the key factor in this kind of uniformity 
challenge and a missing element in Noah's Ark's challenge. 
¶11 We conclude that the court of appeals properly 
answered the Board's comparability argument.  The court of 
appeals analyzed the key comparability cases, including Gottlieb 
v. City of Milwaukee, 33 Wis. 2d 408, 424, 147 N.W.2d 633 
(1967); State ex rel. Levine v. Board of Review, 191 Wis. 2d 
363, 528 N.W.2d 424 (1995); State ex rel Walthers v. Jung, 175 
Wis. 58, 183 N.W. 986 (1921); State ex rel. Hensel v. Town of 
Wilson, 55 Wis. 2d 101, 197 N.W.2d 794 (1972); and State ex rel. 
N/S Associates v. Board of Review, 164 Wis. 2d 31, 473 N.W.2d 
554 (Ct. App. 1991).  
¶12 We agree with the court of appeals analysis of these 
cases.  As the court of appeals explained, none of the cases 
supports a requirement that a taxpayer making a uniformity 
challenge must always show that the undervalued properties are 
"comparable 
properties" 
as 
defined 
in 
Rosen 
v. 
City 
of 
Milwaukee, 72 Wis. 2d 653, 665, 242 N.W.2d 681 (1976).  Because 
the claim of undervaluation of the properties in this case is 
based on evidence of recent sales, comparability is not 
necessary to prove undervaluation.  
No.  96-1074 
 
6 
¶13 Second, the Board contends that Noah's Ark's complaint 
that its property was the only one reassessed based on a recent 
sale is not sufficient to prove violation of the uniformity 
clause.  According to the Board, information about nine 
commercial properties was not sufficient to establish a general 
undervaluation.  The Board relies on N/S Associates, 164 Wis. 2d 
31, to support its position that overvaluation of a single 
property does not violate the uniformity clause.  
¶14 In response to the Board's argument, we agree with the 
court of appeals opinion that N/S Associates is distinguishable. 
 In N/S Associates the assessor had analyzed many properties 
that had been sold, had compared their pre-sale assessments to 
the sale prices and had explained why an increase in value was 
warranted for the complaining taxpayer's property but not for 
the other properties.  See Noah's Ark, 210 Wis. 2d at 317.  In 
this case, by contrast, the assessor did not conduct an 
extensive analysis of the properties and based his conclusion on 
an erroneous view of proper assessment methodology.   
¶15 A taxpayer may complain when the taxing authority 
violates the rule of uniformity by approving an arbitrary method 
of assessment that used improper considerations.  See Noah's 
Ark, 210 Wis. 2d at 316.  In this case the Board singled out 
Noah's Ark from all other commercial properties in the Village 
of Lake Delton and assessed Noah's Ark under the erroneous 
belief that it could single out a property if there were no 
comparable properties.  
No.  96-1074 
 
7 
¶16 We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the 
Board's singling out of one commercial property and reassessing 
it based on a recent sale price while ignoring recent sales of 
other commercial properties is based on an erroneous view of the 
law and is an improper, arbitrary mode of assessment in 
violation 
of 
the 
uniformity 
clause 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
constitution.   
¶17 Third, the Board argues for the first time in this 
court that Noah's Ark has not proved an unfair tax burden 
resulting from the alleged undervaluation of other properties.  
The Board recalculates Noah's Ark's tax bill as if Noah's Ark 
were assessed at its full sale price and the other properties 
were assessed at their full sale price.  Using these figures, 
the Board argues that Noah's Ark is actually better off with its 
1995 assessment than it would be if its tax were recalculated 
with increased assessments for the other commercial properties 
that had recently sold.   
¶18 We disagree with the Board's position.  The issue in 
this case is whether under the 1995 method of assessment Noah's 
Ark's property was overvalued and the taxpayer bore an unfair 
tax burden.  We answer that question "yes."  The Board's 
calculation of Noah's Ark's tax burden is premised on faulty 
reasoning.  On remand the Board is directed to reassess Noah's 
Ark for 1995 by disregarding the evidence of the 1994 sale.  The 
Board is not directed to undertake a comprehensive reassessment 
of commercial properties in the Village of Lake Delton.  
No.  96-1074 
 
8 
¶19 While we hold that the 1995 assessment of Noah's Ark 
violates the uniformity clause in this case, we recognize, as 
did the court of appeals, that perfect uniformity of taxation is 
not obtainable.  Assessors and boards of reviews are faced with 
real constraints in terms of staff power and funds.  In this 
case, however, the Board was not taking steps in a piecemeal 
approach toward attaining uniformity in assessments over time.  
Rather, Noah's Ark presented evidence that the assessor used an 
arbitrary methodology for assessing its property.  Singling out 
one commercial property for special treatment in this case, 
under a mistaken view of proper assessment practice, cannot 
withstand a uniformity challenge. 
¶20 Because we agree with the court of appeals discussion 
of the legal principles as applied to the issue presented, we 
adopt the opinion of the court of appeals as our opinion.  We 
affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause 
to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this 
opinion or that of the court of appeals.  
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed and the cause is remanded. 
¶21 WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 96-1074 
 
1 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-1074 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Noah's Ark Family Park, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
Board of Review of the Village of Lake 
Delton, Village of Lake Delton, and Frank 
Kaminski, Thomas Webb, Kay Mackesey, and 
Todd Nelson, in their respective 
capacities, 
 
 
Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.   Reconsideration denied. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On motion for reconsideration the Board 
of Review asks that the court grant review on the issue of 
whether the failure of Noah's Ark to comply with Wis. Stat. 
§ 70.47(7)(a) is fatal to Noah's Ark's challenge.  To clarify the 
import of the decision, we add the following sentence to the end 
of the sixth paragraph of the opinion at __ Wis. 2d __, 573 
N.W.2d at 854, to read as follows: 
This 
opinion 
is 
limited 
to 
the 
question 
of 
a 
uniformity clause violation.  We did not grant review 
of another question raised by the Board, namely, 
No. 96-1074 
 
2 
whether Noah's Ark's decision not to produce certain 
documents requested by the Board regarding valuation 
of the property pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(a) 
constituted non-compliance with that subsection. 
 
 
¶2 
The motion for reconsideration is denied without 
costs. 
 
¶3 
WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J., did not participate. 
 
 
 
1