Title: State ex rel. Stupar River L.L.C. v. Town of Linwood Board of Review

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 82 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP191 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Stupar River LLC, 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, 
     v. 
Town of Linwood Portage County Board of Review, 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 323 Wis.2d 278, 779 N.W.2d 724 
(Ct. App. 2010 – Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 22, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 19, 2011 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Portage   
 
JUDGE: 
Thomas T. Flugaur 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner-appellant-petitioner there were briefs 
by Thomas W. Bertz and Anderson, O’Brien, Bertz, Skrenes & 
Golla, Stevens Point and oral argument by Thomas W. Bertz. 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Maris 
Rushevics, Stevens Point and oral argument by Maris Rushevics. 
 
 
2011 WI 82
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2009AP191 
(L.C. No. 
2006CV22) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Stupar River LLC, 
 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Town of Linwood Portage County Board of Review, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 22, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.    
 
¶1 
MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.   Stupar River LLC (Stupar 
River) seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of 
appeals affirming a decision of the Portage County Circuit 
Court, Thomas T. Flugaur, Judge, upholding the 2005 property tax 
assessment of the Wisconsin River Country Club (the subject 
property).1 
                                                 
1 State ex rel. Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Bd. of 
Review, No. 2009AP191, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 
30, 2009). 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Stupar River argues that the Town of Linwood Board of 
Review (Board) improperly upheld the assessment of the subject 
property for the 2005 tax year.  Stupar River alleges that this 
assessment was at a level significantly higher than its fair 
market value2 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1) (2003-04).3  
We conclude that the assessment upheld by the Board was made 
according to law and was supported by a reasonable view of the 
evidence, and affirm the court of appeals. 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
¶3 
The following facts are undisputed for the purposes of 
this appeal. 
¶4 
In 2001, Stupar River, a Wisconsin limited liability 
company, purchased the subject property in the Town of Linwood 
for $830,000.  In 2002, the Town of Linwood assessed the subject 
                                                 
2 This court has determined that "for the purposes of 
assessing real property . . . 'full value' . . . means market 
value.  The terms 'full value,' 'market value' and 'fair market 
value' are synonymous and interchangeable in the opinions." 
Flood v. Vill. of Lomira Bd. of Review, 153 Wis. 2d 428, 435, 
451 N.W.2d 422 (1990). 
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
3 
 
property for property tax purposes at $1,831,500.4  Stupar River 
filed an objection with the Board arguing that the 2002 
assessment was not equal to fair market value.  The Board 
conducted a hearing on Stupar River's objection and affirmed the 
assessed value5 of $1,831,500. 
¶5 
Stupar River then filed a petition for a writ of 
certiorari pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13).On October 10, 
2003, the Portage County Circuit Court, John V. Finn, Judge, set 
aside the 2002 assessment, concluding the valuation "was not 
made on the statutory basis," and remanded the case to the Board 
for a reassessment for the 2002 tax year.  The Board appealed 
the decision of the circuit court to the court of appeals, which 
on April 21, 2005, reversed the circuit court and reinstated the 
Board's valuation for the 2002 tax year.  State ex rel. Stupar 
                                                 
4 On September 24, 2002, Stupar River filed a petition for a 
writ of certiorari, arguing that the Board erred by failing to 
assess the subject property at its recent sale price of 
$830,000.  Stupar River's argument centered on the fact that 
Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1) requires assessors to value real property 
at the full market value that could ordinarily be obtained at 
private sale.  The court of appeals concluded, however, that the 
2001 sale of the subject property for $830,000 was not an arms-
length 
transaction 
and, 
accordingly, 
upheld 
the 
Board's 
assessment at $1,831,500.  State ex rel. Stupar River LLC v. 
Town of Linwood Bd. of Review, No. 2004AP108, ¶¶19, 24, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2005). 
5 "Assessed Value" is defined as "[a] dollar amount assigned 
to the taxable property . . . by the assessor for the purpose of 
taxation . . . .  [A] levy is applied directly against [the 
assessed value of the property] to determine the tax due."  
Bureau of Assessment Practices, Wis. Dep’t of Revenue, Wisconsin 
Property Assessment Manual, G-1 (2011).  A levy is "[t]he 
imposition of a fine or tax." Black's Law Dictionary, 919 (7th 
ed. 1999). 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
4 
 
River LLC v. Town of Linwood Bd. of Review, No. 2004AP108, ¶24, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2005).  This 
decision of the court of appeals reinstating the 2002 tax 
assessment of the Board was never appealed, and is not before us 
today. 
¶6 
While the litigation challenging the 2002 assessment 
was pending, the subject property was assessed for the 2003 and 
2004 tax years at the same value as 2002——that is, at 
$1,831,500.  Stupar River paid its property taxes in 2003 and 
2004 under protest. 
¶7 
For the 2005 tax year, the property assessment of the 
subject property was increased to $1,893,400.6  On October 1, 
2005, Stupar River filed a written objection to the 2005 
assessment with the Board, arguing that the 2005 assessment was 
not equal to the fair market value of the subject property.  On 
November 
16, 
2005, 
the 
Board, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 70.47(7)(a), conducted an evidentiary hearing. 
¶8 
At the evidentiary hearing, the Board heard sworn 
testimony relating to three competing assessments of the subject 
                                                 
6 This figure is representative of a $61,900 increase in the 
assessed value for 2005 in comparison to tax years 2002, 2003, 
and 2004.  The record indicates that the reason for the increase 
was that the value of timber located upon the subject property 
had increased by this amount. 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
5 
 
property.  Scott Williams, an appraiser7 for the Town of Linwood, 
testified that based upon his review, he valued the subject 
property at $1,500,000.  Daniel Mielke, the assessor for the 
Town of Linwood, who concluded that the assessed value of the 
subject property in 2005 was $1,893,400, testified in support of 
his assessment.  Finally, Steven Vitale, on behalf of Stupar 
River, submitted a written appraisal document, which valued the 
subject property at $1,190,000. 
¶9 
On November 21, 2005, the Board upheld the 2005 
assessment. 
¶10 Stupar River subsequently petitioned for certiorari 
review of the Board's November 21, 2005 determination.  The 
circuit court gave its oral ruling on Stupar River's petition on 
March 27, 2008.  By this time, the 2006 and 2007 assessments of 
the subject property were also complete.8   Both the 2006 and 
                                                 
7 A certified property appraiser is authorized to inspect 
and appraise real and personal property for assessment purposes, 
but is not authorized to perform the duties of an assessor.  
Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, 2-2 (12/2010).   In 
contrast, a certified assessor is authorized to perform the 
duties of a property appraiser and is additionally responsible 
for all assessed values of real and personal property in the 
assessment district for which the individual is the statutory 
assessor.  Id. 
8 The record indicates that the delay between the November 
16, 2005 evidentiary hearing before the Board and the March 27, 
2008 oral ruling by the circuit court was due to difficulty in 
obtaining a transcript of the 2005 hearing.  Board of review 
hearings are typically tape recorded, and later transcribed if 
the matter is appealed.  As Judge Flugaur noted, "[i]t's the 
same transcript that . . . one secretary said she would prefer 
to run naked through rush-hour traffic in downtown Chicago 
rather than finish typing it." 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
6 
 
2007 assessments of the subject property were $1,435,900——a 
decrease of $457,500 from the 2005 assessment and a decrease of 
$394,500 from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 assessments.  Stupar 
River did not challenge the accuracy of the 2006 assessment at 
the circuit court.  Instead, Stupar River argued that the 2006 
assessment established as a matter of law that the assessments 
for 2003, 2004, and 2005 were significantly higher than the 
subject property's fair market value.9 
¶11 On May 12, 2008, the circuit court remanded the action 
to the Board with instructions to "reassess the [subject 
property] for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to be consistent 
with the assessment for 2006 . . . or provide a rational 
explanation as to why the property’s assessed value has 
decreased in value." 
¶12 In response to the order of the circuit court, the 
Board submitted a letter from Mielke, which explained that the 
comparatively lower amount of the 2006 assessment was not due to 
any change in the fair market value of the subject property.  He 
explained that, upon review of the Department of Revenue Major 
Class Comparison Report issued in 2005, he had concluded it was 
necessary to lower the total assessed value of the commercial 
                                                 
9 The parties dispute whether the 2003 and 2004 assessments 
are properly before us. Stupar River makes the same argument in 
regard to these assessments that it made in regard to the 2005 
assessment. Like the court of appeals, we do not address this 
issue because we reject Stupar River's argument that the 2005 
assessment of the subject property was excessive in violation of 
Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1). 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
7 
 
class10 of properties in order to "bring it back in line with the 
other classes of properties."  Mielke stated that the 2006 
assessment was lower than the 2005 assessment because of an 
overall downward adjustment he made to the assessed values of 
all of the commercial class properties in the Town of Linwood. 
¶13 In 
response 
to 
Mielke's 
letter 
explaining 
the 
reduction in the 2006 assessment in comparison to the 2005 
assessment, Stupar River submitted a letter from Carol Kuehn, a 
retired assessor from Stevens Point, Wisconsin.  In her letter, 
Kuehn argued that Mielke's letter did not provide a rational 
explanation for the subject property's lower assessment in 2006.  
Kuehn's 
letter 
stated 
"Mielke's 
claimed 
methodology" 
for 
reducing 
the 
subject 
property's 
assessment 
in 
2006 
was 
"misguided and not rational" for the following reasons: (1) the 
aggregate value of the commercial class of property in the Town 
of Linwood is not more than 5% of the fair market value of the 
                                                 
10 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part: 
 
The assessor shall segregate into the following classes on 
the basis of use . . . : 
 
1. 
Residential.  
2. 
Commercial.  
3. 
Manufacturing.  
4. 
Agricultural.  
5. 
Undeveloped.  
5m.  Agricultural forest.  
6. 
Productive forest land.  
7. 
Other. 
8. 
 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
8 
 
taxation district,11 and therefore, Mielke was not statutorily 
required to adjust the commercial class of properties;12 (2) 
Mielke improperly reduced the subject property by 24%, while all 
other commercial properties were reduced by 36%; and (3) because 
Mielke assessed the subject property in 2006 at $1,435,900, and 
"[b]oth the assessor and the Department of Revenue indicate that  
the commercial class of property has not decreased in value" 
from 2005 to 2006, the accurate value for the 2005 assessment 
was $1,435,900. 
¶14 On October 28, 2008, the circuit court concluded that 
the Board provided a sufficient explanation for the reduction of 
the 2006 assessment in comparison with the 2005 assessment and 
affirmed the Board's determination.  On appeal, the court of 
appeals concluded that "[t]he reduction in the 2006 assessment 
was not based on a change in the fair market value of the 
[subject] property, but was based on an attempt to equalize 
market value in response to a Wisconsin Department of Revenue 
report."  Stupar River LLC, No. 2009AP191, ¶8.  The court of 
appeals held that, because the 2006 assessment was not reduced 
                                                 
11 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.05(5)(a)3. defines "any class of 
property that includes more than 5% of the full value of the 
taxation district" as a "major class of property." 
12  Contrary to Kuehn's argument, Wis. Stat. § 70.05(5)(d) 
does not require that the aggregate value of the commercial 
class be within 10% of the other classes.  Instead, the statute 
requires that the "assessed value of each major class of 
property of a taxation district" must be "within 10% of the full 
value of the same major class of property . . . during the 4-
year period consisting of the current year and the 3 preceding 
years . . . ."  Wis. Stat. § 70.05(5)(d).   
No. 
2009AP191   
 
9 
 
in order to reflect a change in the subject property's fair 
market value, Stupar River's argument was premised on an 
inaccurate assumption. Id., ¶9.  Accordingly, the court of 
appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court. 
¶15 Stupar River then petitioned this court for review, 
which we granted on September 22, 2010. 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶16 Stupar River asks this court to overturn the Board's 
decision to uphold the property tax assessment of the subject 
property for the 2005 tax year.  In a certiorari action under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 70.47(13), 
we 
review 
the 
Board's 
decision 
independently, but benefiting from the analyses of the circuit 
court and court of appeals.  ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Bd. of Review 
of the Village of Fontana-On-Geneva Lake, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 335, 
603 
N.W.2d 217 
(1999) 
(internal 
quotations 
and 
citations 
omitted).  In our review, we look for "any error in the 
proceedings of the board which renders the assessment or the 
proceedings void."  Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13).  Our review is a 
"strictly limited" one, ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 231 Wis. 2d at 335, 
confined only to determining whether the Board's actions were: 
(1) 
within 
its 
jurisdiction; 
(2) 
according 
to 
law; 
(3) 
arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will 
and not its judgment; and (4) supported by evidence such that 
the Board might reasonably make the order or determination in 
question.  State ex rel. Mitchell Aero, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 
74 Wis. 2d 268, 281-82, 246 N.W.2d 521 (1976).  Stupar River's 
argument 
centers 
on 
the 
second 
of 
these 
four 
elements, 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
10 
 
contending that the Board failed to act according to law, and 
that is consequently our focus as well.   
 ¶17 If the assessment is made in accordance with the 
statutory mandate, it must be upheld if it can be supported by 
any reasonable view of the evidence.  Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, 
Inc. v. Kenosha Cnty. Bd. of Review, 184 Wis. 2d 541, 555, 516 
N.W.2d 695 (1994).  "In determining whether there is enough 
evidence to sustain the assessment, the presumptions are all in 
favor of the rightful action of the Board."  ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 
231 Wis. 2d at 335 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 
¶18 Stupar River argues that the Board, by upholding the 
2005 assessment, violated Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).  Whether the 
Board followed the statute in making its assessment is a 
question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.  
Adams Outdoor Adver., Ltd. v. City of Madison, 294 Wis. 2d 441, 
¶26, 717 N.W.2d 803. 
III. DISCUSSION 
¶19 The question before us is whether the Board acted 
according to law when it upheld the 2005 assessment of the 
subject property. 
¶20 Stupar River argues that (1) the assessed value of a 
property must, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1), equal that 
property's fair market value, (2) Mielke submitted to the Board 
that the fair market value of the subject property remained 
"about the same" from 2003 through 2006, (3) in 2006, the 
assessed value of the subject property was $1,435,900, and 
therefore, (4) the assessed values of the subject property in 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
11 
 
2003 ($1,831,500), 2004 ($1,831,500), and 2005 ($1,893,400) must 
necessarily be above the fair market value of the subject 
property.  Accordingly, Stupar River contends the assessments 
for 2003, 2004, and 2005 are overassessments in violation of the 
plain language of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).13 
¶21 The Board counters this argument by pointing to 
Mielke's 
explanation 
that 
the 
reduction 
in 
the 
subject 
property's assessed value from 2005 ($1,893,400) to the assessed 
value in 2006 ($1,435,900) was based on "an overall class 
adjustment" to the total assessed value of all commercial 
property in the Town of Linwood, and that the reduction was not 
                                                 
13 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(1) provides: 
Real property shall be valued by the assessor in the 
manner specified in the Wisconsin property assessment 
manual provided under s. 73.03(2a) from actual view or 
from the best information that the assessor can 
practicably obtain, at the full value which could 
ordinarily be obtained therefor at private sale. In 
determining the value, the assessor shall consider 
recent arm's-length sales of the property to be 
assessed if according to professionally acceptable 
appraisal practices those sales conform to recent 
arm's-length sales of reasonably comparable property; 
recent arm's-length sales of reasonably comparable 
property; 
and 
all 
factors 
that, 
according 
to 
professionally acceptable appraisal practices, affect 
the value of the property to be assessed. 
 
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1), an "assessor's task is 
to identify the market value of a fee simple interest as 
described by the Property Assessment Manual, and which reflects 
the 'full value' that could ordinarily be obtained at a private 
sale . . . ."  Walgreen Co. v. City of Madison, 2008 WI 80, ¶20, 
311 Wis. 2d 158, 752 N.W.2d 687. 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
12 
 
done in an attempt to reflect the fair market value of the 
subject property.14 
¶22 Stupar River argues that, regardless of Mielke's 
reasoning, the 2006 assessment must, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 70.32(1), equal the subject property's fair market value.  
This argument rests on the false premise that the assessed value 
of a property must equal the fair market value of that property 
in order to comply with Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1). 
¶23 Without question, assessors must base assessments of 
real property on the property's fair market value. See Wis. 
Stat. § 70.32(1).  However, as the plain language of the 
Property Assessment Manual15 (Manual) makes clear, a property's 
fair market value is not synonymous with its assessed value.  
Manual, 1-28.  The Manual explains that "[i]n most cases 
individual property assessments are at different levels than the 
value standard"——that is to say, different than the property's 
fair market value.16  Manual, 1-22 (emphasis added).  In fact, 
                                                 
14  Stupar River's criticism of the 2006 assessment is 
irrelevant because Stupar River has never brought a legal action 
challenging the validity of that assessment.  Accordingly, the 
validity of the 2006 assessment is not before us. 
15 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(1) requires that assessors adhere 
to the Manual, absent conflicting law.  See Walgreen, 311 
Wis. 2d 158, ¶3. 
16 The Manual describes the "value standard" as: 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
13 
 
the Manual notes that "both assessed and fair market values are 
shown on property tax bills."  Manual, 1-28. 
¶24 The Department of Revenue discusses this concept in 
its standard "Assessment Objection Procedure" form:  
 
Wisconsin 
statutes 
require 
all 
non-agricultural 
property to be assessed at full market value as of 
January 1 each year.  The courts have determined that 
assessments at a percentage of full market value are 
acceptable when applied uniformly.  Therefore, to 
determine if your assessment is fair, you must analyze 
it in relation to full market value. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Simply put, a property's assessed value is 
based on fair market value but a property's assessed value is 
                                                                                                                                                             
The basis for the methods used in estimating values 
for the equalized or assessed values.  There are two 
basic values used in the process, the market value 
('full value' for real property and 'true cash value' 
for personal property), which is the basis for value 
of all property except agricultural land.  The market 
value is based on the most probable selling price of 
the property.  Agricultural land, as defined by 
administrative rule, is based on a valuation standard 
which analyzes the ability to generate income as it is 
currently being used, hence 'use value'. 
Manual, G-6. 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
14 
 
not necessarily equal to its fair market value.17  It is 
axiomatic that assessors may assign to taxable property an 
assessed value of less than 100 percent of the property's fair 
market value18 when applied uniformly.19  We therefore reject 
Stupar River's argument that the 2005 assessment was an 
overassessment in violation of the plain language of Wis. Stat. 
                                                 
17 See, e.g., Rite-Hite Corp. v. Bd. of Review of Vill. of 
Brown Deer, 216 Wis. 2d 189, 197, 575 N.W.2d 721 (Ct. App. 1997) 
(residential, commercial, and manufacturing properties assigned 
assessed values at 87 percent of fair market value); Noah's Ark 
Family Park v. Bd. of Review of the Vill. of Delton, 210 
Wis. 2d 301, 307, 565 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1997) (commercial 
properties assigned assessed values between 19 and 91 percent 
below their fair market values); State ex. rel. N/S Assocs. v. 
Bd. of Review of Vill. of Greendale, 164 Wis. 2d 31, 40, 473 
N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1991) (commercial property assigned an 
assessed value of 88 percent of fair market value); Fontana v. 
Vill. of Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, 107 Wis. 2d 226, 229, 319 
N.W.2d 900 (Ct. App. 1982) (commercial property assigned an 
assessed value of 80 percent of fair market value); Mitchell 
Aero, 74 Wis. 2d at 271 (commercial property assigned an 
assessed value of 55 percent of fair market value); State v. 
Jordon, 182 Wis. 645, 197 N.W. 189 (1924) (residential property 
assigned an assessed value of 50 percent of fair market value). 
18 We have previously held that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 70.32(1), an assessor may not assign a property an assessed 
value greater than the property's fair market value. Flood, 153 
Wis. 2d at 431 ("We also hold that sec. 70.32(1) proscribes 
assessing real property in excess of market value."). 
19 The uniformity clause of the Wisconsin Constitution, 
found in art. VIII, § 1, provides: "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."  This provision has been interpreted to 
"require[] that the method or mode of taxing real property must 
be applied uniformly to all classes of property within the tax 
district."  State ex rel. Levine v. Bd. of Review, 191 Wis. 2d 
363, 371, 528 N.W.2d 424 (1995).   
No. 
2009AP191   
 
15 
 
§ 70.32(1), and conclude that the 2005 assessment was made 
according to law. 
¶25 Having concluded that the 2005 assessment was made in 
accordance with the statutory mandate of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1), 
we must uphold that assessment if it can be supported by any 
reasonable view of the evidence.  Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 
555.  In determining whether there is enough evidence to sustain 
the 2005 assessment, "the presumptions are all in favor of the 
rightful action of the Board."  ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 231 Wis. 2d at 
335 (internal quotations and citations omitted).  As such, the 
burden rests upon Stupar River to prove that the Board lacked 
sufficient evidence to uphold the 2005 assessment. 
¶26 During the November 16, 2005 evidentiary hearing, the 
Board heard lengthy sworn testimony from Mielke regarding the 
2005 assessment.  During his testimony, Mielke provided a 
detailed account of how he reached his determination that the 
subject property's assessed value was $1,893,400.  His testimony 
also included several responses to questions raised by the 
Board, as well as by counsel representing Stupar River and the 
Town of Linwood regarding his methodology and reasoning.  The 
Board also heard sworn testimony supporting the competing 
appraisals from Williams and Vitale, to which Mielke responded 
in turn. 
¶27  Stupar River's only argument in support of its 
challenge to the correctness of the 2005 assessment centers upon 
a comparison of that assessment to the 2006 assessment.  Beyond 
this comparison, Stupar River fails to point to any evidence in 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
16 
 
the record that would lead this court to question the accuracy 
of the 2005 assessment and, therefore, Stupar River has failed 
to overcome the strong presumption "in favor of the rightful 
action of the Board."  Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 555.  
Therefore, after reviewing the record, we conclude that the 2005 
assessment is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence. 
¶28 Accordingly, we conclude that the Board properly 
upheld the 2005 assessment and we affirm the court of appeals. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
¶29 Stupar River argues that the Board improperly upheld 
the assessment of the subject property for the 2005 tax year.  
Stupar River alleges that this assessment was at a level that 
was significantly higher than its fair market value in violation 
of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).  We conclude that the assessment 
upheld by the Board was made according to law and was supported 
by a reasonable view of the evidence, and affirm the court of 
appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
No. 
2009AP191   
 
 
 
1