Title: The Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Board of Review for Town of Pacific
Citation: 2010 WI 47
Docket Number: 2007AP002886
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 18, 2010

2010 WI 47 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2886 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
The Saddle Ridge Corporation, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Board of Review for Town of Pacific, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION 
Reported at: 321 Wis. 2d 475, 774 N.W.2d 475 
(Ct. App. 2009-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 18, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 12, 2010   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Columbia   
 
JUDGE: 
James Evenson   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Amie B. Trupke and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, and oral 
argument by Amie B. Trupke. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief by Anthony 
A. Tomaselli, Andrew M. Norman, Josephine K. Benkers, and 
Quarles & Brady LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Josephine K. 
Benkers. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Jonathan B. Levine, 
Jessica L. Boeldt, and the Law Firm of Jonathan B. Levine, 
Milwaukee, on behalf of the Community Associations Institute 
Wisconsin Chapter, Inc. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Debra P. Condrad and 
Thomas D. Larson, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin REALTORS® 
Association. 
 
 
 
2010 WI 47
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP2886  
(L.C. No. 
2007CV44) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
The Saddle Ridge Corporation, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Review for Town of Pacific, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 18, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   This is a review of an 
unpublished decision of the court of appeals,1 which affirmed an 
order of the Circuit Court for Columbia County, James Evenson, 
Judge. 
 
The 
circuit 
court 
order 
granted 
Saddle 
Ridge 
Corporation's petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 70.47(13) (2007-08),2 and vacated the determination by 
                                                 
1 Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Review for Town of Pacific, 
No. 2007AP2886, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 
2009). 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2007-08 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
2 
 
the Board of Review of the Town of Pacific affirming a property 
tax assessment against Saddle Ridge.     
¶2 
The question presented is whether Saddle Ridge was 
properly assessed by the Town of Pacific for property tax due on 
41 tax parcels in three condominiums developed by Saddle Ridge.  
These parcels correspond to 41 condominium units that are 
declared and platted in the condominium instruments but were not 
constructed at the time they were assessed by the Town.  As 
stated by the Town, the issue is, "Who is responsible for paying 
property taxes on declared but unbuilt condominium units?"3 
¶3 
For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the Board 
"acted according to law" in assessing Saddle Ridge for the 
unbuilt units.  Saddle Ridge owns the declared but unbuilt 
condominium units and these unbuilt units are tax parcels, the 
assessment 
value 
of 
which 
is 
assessed 
to 
Saddle 
Ridge.  
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, 
which affirmed the order of the circuit court.  The Board of 
Review for the Town of Pacific got it right.  Saddle Ridge's 
petition for a writ of certiorari should have been denied by the 
circuit court.   
                                                 
3 Two other issues were presented:  (1) Is the property in 
condominiums assessable to its beneficial owner, just as all 
other real property is assessable to its beneficial owner?  (2) 
Is the condominium developer the beneficial owner of the 
declared but unbuilt units?   
Because we conclude that Saddle Ridge is responsible as the 
owner for paying property taxes on the declared but unbuilt 
condominium units based on our analysis of the statutes, we need 
not address these other two issues. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
3 
 
I 
¶4 
Before setting out the facts giving rise to this case, 
we briefly review the law of condominiums in Wisconsin. 
¶5 
The condominium form of ownership "is strictly a 
creature of statute in the United States and does not exist 
without enabling legislation."4  Chapter 703 of the Wisconsin 
statutes, 
entitled 
the Condominium Ownership Act, governs 
condominiums.   
¶6 
To create a condominium, a condominium declaration and 
a plat must be filed with the register of deeds.5  The 
condominium is defined as the property that has been subject to 
a condominium declaration under the statutes.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.02(4).  Once the declaration and plat are properly 
recorded, the condominium exists regardless of whether any units 
have been constructed.  Wis. Stat. § 703.07(1). 
¶7 
The Condominium Ownership Act establishes mandatory 
provisions for the contents of both the declaration and the 
plat.  Wis. Stat. §§ 703.09, 703.11.   
¶8 
The person who creates a condominium by subjecting the 
property to a condominium declaration is referred to as the 
"declarant."  Wis. Stat. § 703.02(7).   
¶9 
The condominium property is made up of two legal 
components: "units" and "common elements."   
                                                 
4 Michael S. Green et al., Wisconsin Condominium Law 
Handbook § 1.4 (3d ed. 2006). 
5 Wis. Stat. § 703.07; see also Green, supra n.4, § 4.10. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
4 
 
¶10 "Units" are defined by Wis. Stat. § 703.02(15) as the 
"part of a condominium intended for any type of independent use, 
including one or more cubicles of air . . . or one or more rooms 
or enclosed spaces located on one or more floors, or parts 
thereof, in a building."  The declaration must contain a 
description of each unit and the condominium plat must designate 
every unit within the condominium at the time it is filed.  Wis. 
Stat. § 703.11(3).  Designating units creates tax parcels.  Wis. 
Stat. § 703.21(1).  Individual unit owners hold legal title to 
the condominium units.  Wis. Stat. §§ 703.02(17), 703.05.   
¶11 The "common elements" are "all of a condominium except 
its 
units." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 703.02(2). 
 
The 
condominium 
declaration must contain "a general description" of the common 
elements.  Wis. Stat. § 703.09(1)(d).  Every unit owner owns an 
undivided percentage interest in the common elements.  Wis. 
Stat. § 703.13(1).  The declaration must set out the percentage 
interest 
"appurtenant 
to 
each 
unit." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 703.09(1)(e), 703.13.  The percentage interests must "have a 
permanent character" and generally may not be changed without 
the written consent of all unit owners and their mortgagees.  
Wis. Stat. § 703.13(4). 
¶12 A 
declarant 
may 
establish 
the 
condominium 
as 
"expandable" by following the requirements set out in Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.26.  The declarant may then add property and additional 
units to the condominium.  To do so, the declarant must record 
an amendment to the declaration that states the new percentage 
interests of the unit owners and must record an addendum to the 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
5 
 
condominium plat that includes detail and information about the 
new property, as required in the original plat, including a 
survey of the added property, building plans, and information 
about the units and common elements.  Wis. Stat. § 703.26(3), 
703.11(2).   
¶13 Other statutory provisions will be discussed below.  
We now set out the facts giving rise to the dispute. 
II 
¶14 Saddle Ridge developed three condominiums at issue in 
the present case and is the declarant of each condominium.6  
Saddle Ridge recorded the condominium declarations and plats 
showing all the units, including the presently unbuilt ones.  
The record before us contains only undated excerpts of the 
condominium 
instruments, 
but 
at 
least 
one 
of 
the 
three 
condominiums was apparently first declared as a condominium in 
1968.  Saddle Ridge has the sole right to develop and sell the 
unbuilt units.   
¶15 In 2006, each of the three condominiums included some 
unbuilt units.  In the three condominiums, 41 units are included 
in the declarations and plats but are not yet constructed.7  
                                                 
6 The 
three 
condominiums 
are 
Saddle 
Ridge 
Estates 
Condominium, The Forest at Swan Lake Village Condominium, and 
Saddle Ridge Condominium.  
7 In 2006, Saddle Ridge Estates included 132 built units and 
17 unbuilt units; The Forest at Swan Lake Village Condominium 
included 42 built and 20 unbuilt units; the Saddle Ridge 
Condominium included 127 built and 4 unbuilt units. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
6 
 
These 41 declared condominium units correspond to the 41 tax 
parcels Saddle Ridge contests.   
¶16 The 
condominiums 
are 
subject 
to 
property 
tax 
assessment by the Town of Pacific.  In 2005, and apparently in 
preceding years, the Town assessed these parcels to Saddle 
Ridge.  The 2005 assessment value for each of the 41 parcels was 
$5,000.8   
¶17 In 2006, the assessment value for each of the unbuilt 
units increased.  The Town sent Notice of Assessment to Saddle 
Ridge, assessing each of the 41 parcels at $32,000.  The table 
identifying the parcels and assessment values is titled "Real 
Estate Sites."  It identifies which condominium each parcel is 
within and gives both a unit number and a tax parcel number for 
each.  The Assessment table lists the size of each parcel as 
"0.0000" acres.  
¶18 Saddle Ridge contested the 2006 assessments.  In its 
objection, Saddle Ridge explained its reason for challenging the 
assessment values of the 41 parcels:  "These parcels are bare 
land and will not become a unit until a structure is added.  
These parcels cannot be sold."  Where it was required to state 
an opinion of the "fair market value of the property," Saddle 
Ridge stated: "The land is owned by Saddle Ridge Estates 
                                                 
8 Although documentation of prior tax years is not part of 
the record here, at the hearing before the Board of Review, one 
member of the Board commented, "that assessment rate went 
uncontested for ten years." 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
7 
 
Association."9 Saddle Ridge then added, "$00.00 should be 
taxed."10   
¶19 Saddle Ridge signed a stipulation with the Board of 
Review, waiving the right to have a separate hearing on each 
parcel and agreeing that the 41 objections would be consolidated 
together into one hearing.  
¶20 The Board of Review held a hearing on Saddle Ridge's 
consolidated objections on November 2, 2006.  At the hearing, 
the Board heard from representatives of Saddle Ridge and from 
the Assessor.11  Saddle Ridge's representatives maintained that 
each parcel was not a condominium "unit" and would not become a 
unit "until it is four walls or a cubicle of air or a building."  
Saddle Ridge relied on Wis. Stat. § 703.21, which states in part 
that "[n]either the building, the property nor any of the common 
elements shall be deemed to be a parcel separate from the unit."   
¶21 In particular, one Saddle Ridge representative argued: 
"We are being taxed . . . [for] units that do not exist.  All 
                                                 
9 Saddle Ridge Estates Association is the association of 
unit owners within the Saddle Ridge Estates condominium, a 
distinct entity from Saddle Ridge Corporation, the declarant and 
developer of the condominiums. 
10 From the record it appears that Saddle Ridge filed both a 
single objection covering all 41 contested parcels, as well as 
41 individual objection forms, one for each parcel.  Each stated 
nearly identical reasons for objection to the assessment. 
However, in the individual objections, rather than "$00.00 
should be taxed," Saddle Ridge stated "Ø value——cannot tax 
development rights." 
11 The Board heard testimony and debated the issue at 
length.  The transcript of the hearing is 115 pages long. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
8 
 
there is there is land. . . . it's bare land owned by the 
condominium association. . . . I cannot sell that land.  They 
own it.  I have developmental rights through the Saddle Ridge 
Corporation.  When I develop a building and make a cubicle of 
air around it, I can sell it . . . ."  Saddle Ridge urged that 
"we should get no tax on those parcels . . . because the 
association owns them . . . ."  At one point in the hearing, the 
Board chair asked a Saddle Ridge representative, "You're saying 
it doesn't become value until it's sold[?]"  The response was, 
"Until it becomes a unit."      
¶22 Saddle Ridge acknowledged at the hearing that the 
parcels are declared as units by the condominium declarations, 
with tax parcel numbers assigned by the county.  One board 
member queried, "[W]hy are these even separate tax parcels when 
they don't exist?"  And Saddle Ridge responded, "We have to 
declare how many units we're going to build in there when you 
declare a condominium. . . . And that's when the county picks it 
up and assigned [sic] separate tax parcels."  
¶23 The discussion at the hearing also addressed how the 
assessor had arrived at the $32,000 assessment value.  Two 
qualified assessors were present.  The board was informed that 
the assessor's office used software approved by the Wisconsin 
Department of Revenue and used throughout the state and that the 
assessment for the parcels had been derived using "comparable 
vacant sales of condo land that is marketable."  These 
comparable sales were described as "land condominiums," in which 
the vacant lots were available for sale before construction.   
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
9 
 
¶24 In contrast, the condominiums at issue here are not 
"land condominiums."  Saddle Ridge could not sell any vacant 
land in the condominiums at issue here.   
¶25 The assessor testified that "[a]ll comparable sales 
were adjusted for differences in subject properties," and stated 
that "there are, unfortunately, no vacant sales in the Saddle 
Ridge" that could be used for comparison.  One Board member, who 
later argued that the assessment value should be less than 
$32,000, stated that "there's [sic] no comparable sales from the 
appellant because they can't sell vacant units.  The comparable 
sales . . . were for land condos; different animal."  
¶26 Saddle Ridge did not present the Board of Review with 
alternative comparables or suggest a lower valuation.  It 
maintained that the assessment value of each unit should be 
zero.   
¶27 After considerable discussion, some members of the 
Board moved to reduce the assessment to $5,000.  No member of 
the Board moved to support Saddle Ridge's position that the 
parcels could not be taxed to Saddle Ridge at all.  The motions 
to alter the assessment value failed, and the $32,000 assessment 
was upheld. 
¶28 Saddle Ridge contested the determination of the Board 
by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in Columbia County 
Circuit Court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13).  The circuit 
court granted Saddle Ridge's petition and remanded the matter to 
the Board, "to vacate the assessment against Saddle Ridge."   
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
10 
 
¶29 In its analysis the circuit court referenced the 
definition of "unit" from the Condominium Ownership Act, Wis. 
Stat. § 703.02(15), and Aluminum Industries Corp. v. Camelot 
Trails Condominium Corp., 194 Wis. 2d 574, 535 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. 
App. 1995), which interpreted that definition.  The circuit 
court also reviewed the definition of "unit" in the condominium 
declarations and concluded that "[t]hese definitions clearly and 
unequivocally state that the land under each of the condominium 
units is a common area and not part of that unit.  Because the 
lands 
constitute 
a 
common 
element 
they 
belong 
to 
the 
associations and other unit owners on a percentage basis."   
¶30 The circuit court therefore determined that because 
"Saddle Ridge is not the actual or beneficial owner of the 
forty-one parcels it is not subject to taxation thereon."  The 
circuit court commented that "even though Saddle Ridge provided 
no estimate of value before the board, failure to do so does not 
invalidate the petition because Saddle Ridge is not the proper 
party to be assessed."       
¶31 The Town appealed.  The court of appeals was sharply 
divided.  The majority affirmed the order of the circuit court.  
The majority opinion analyzed the assessment in terms of "vacant 
land reserved for development within a partially developed 
condominium project."  The majority opinion expressly stated 
that "we do not address the issue of whether a municipality may 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
11 
 
assess a condominium developer for the development value 
of . . . a declared but unbuilt unit."12   
¶32 The majority opinion also rejected the Town's position 
of 
applying 
a 
"beneficial 
ownership" 
test, 
stating 
that 
"imposing a common law test of ownership for tax assessment 
purposes would be inappropriate in the condominium context 
because the legislature has adopted a comprehensive statutory 
scheme 
that 
addresses 
condominium 
ownership 
rights . . . . 
[T]his scheme explicitly provides that ownership of the type of 
property at issue here . . . is determined under the terms of 
the declaration . . . ."13   
¶33 Judge Dykman dissented, arguing that the majority 
opinion erred by analyzing the "vacant land" and that "[i]n 
reality, the assessment was for forty-one 'units' that Saddle 
Ridge owned."14  He proclaimed that as a consequence, "[i]f the 
majority is correct, Saddle Ridge has found the Holy Grail of 
real estate taxation.  Not only can Saddle Ridge transfer its 
real estate taxes to others, it can avoid property taxes 
entirely, from the time it or any landowner forms a condominium 
until the time the first structure is built . . . ."15   
                                                 
12 Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Review for Town of Pacific, 
No. 2007AP2886, unpublished slip op., ¶21 n.10 (Wis. Ct. App. 
Aug. 27, 2009). 
13 Id., ¶10. 
14 Id., ¶24 (Dykman, J., dissenting).  
15 Id., ¶23 (Dykman, J., dissenting). 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
12 
 
¶34 Judge Dykman agreed that "[t]here is no dispute that 
all of the land or dirt in Saddle Ridge's condominiums" is part 
of the common elements of the condominium, rather than being 
condominium 
"units."16 
 
He 
concluded, 
however, 
that 
this 
characterization "does not change the fact that the declared but 
unbuilt units are also 'units,' with corresponding interests in 
the common elements. . . . Saddle Ridge has not addressed the 
real issue——whether its declared but unbuilt units establish 
parcels subject to taxation.  I have concluded that they do."17 
¶35 We are generally in agreement with Judge Dykman's 
analysis and reverse the decision of the court of appeals.18   
                                                 
16 Id., ¶35 (Dykman, J., dissenting) 
17 Id., ¶42 (Dykman, J., dissenting). 
18 We also note that in its brief and argument here, Saddle 
Ridge has abandoned the "double taxation" argument raised before 
the Board of Review and the court of appeals.  In any event the 
argument is not supported.  No documentation of the taxation of 
other unit owners is in the record to establish whether more 
than one party has been taxed for the value of the parcels in 
dispute here.  As Judge Dykman observed in his dissent at the 
court of appeals, even if there had been such a double taxation, 
it was to the detriment of the other unit owners, not to Saddle 
Ridge: 
Saddle Ridge does not have standing to complain about 
the assessments of units it doesn't own.  Saddle Ridge 
could complain that its pro-rata share of the common 
elements is excessive because the common elements were 
too highly assessed.  But it doesn't make that 
assertion. 
Saddle 
Ridge 
can 
complain 
about 
the 
valuation of its parcels, an issue I address later, 
but I have concluded that its declared but unbuilt 
units establish parcels subject to assessment and 
taxation.  If there was any double taxation, it did 
not affect Saddle Ridge.   
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
13 
 
III 
 
¶36 Certiorari review under Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13) is 
limited to a review of the record made before the board of 
review.  The court does not conduct its own factual inquiry and 
may not admit any new evidence.19  
 
¶37 On certiorari, the court is limited to considering 
four factors:  
(1) whether the Board acted within its jurisdiction;  
(2) whether the Board acted according to law;  
(3) 
whether 
the 
Board's 
action 
was 
arbitrary, 
oppressive, or unreasonable, representing its will 
rather than its judgment; and  
(4) whether the evidence was such that the board might 
reasonably 
make 
the 
order 
or 
determination 
in 
question.20 
 
¶38 Review in the instant case falls under the second 
factor:  Did the Board act according to law?   
¶39 With regard to the first factor, the Board acted 
within its jurisdiction.  No one asserts otherwise.  
¶40 With regard to the third factor, no allegation is 
made, and no evidence appears in the record, that the Board's 
                                                                                                                                                             
Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Review for Town of Pacific, No. 
2007AP2886, unpublished slip op., ¶43 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 
2009) (Dykman, J., dissenting). 
19 Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 2001 WI 92, ¶20, 245 
Wis. 2d 86, 630 N.W.2d 141. 
20 Id. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
14 
 
action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable, representing 
its will rather than its judgment.   
¶41 With regard to the fourth factor, an assessment "made 
in accordance with the statutory mandate must be upheld if it 
can be supported by any reasonable view of the evidence."21  "The 
presumptions are all in favor of the rightful action of the 
board."22    
¶42 Here, a reasonable view of the evidence before the 
Board supports the Board's determination of the assessment 
value.  The assessor used comparable property, adjusting for 
differences between the comparable property and the unbuilt 
units assessed here.  This method of valuation is well accepted.  
Saddle Ridge presented no evidence to support a lower assessment 
value.  Based on the evidence before it, the Board reasonably 
determined to uphold the 2006 assessment value of each unit at 
$32,000. 
IV 
¶43 We conclude that Saddle Ridge was lawfully assessed 
for the property tax due on the tax parcels at issue here.  
                                                 
21 Id., ¶21. 
22 Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc. v. Kenosha County Bd. of 
Review, 184 Wis. 2d 541, 555, 516 N.W.2d 695 (1994). 
The court will not make an assessment of the property.  If 
it finds error that renders the assessment void, the court must 
set aside the assessment and remand to the Board for further 
proceedings.  Nankin, 245 Wis. 2d 86, ¶21. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
15 
 
These parcels represent the declared but unbuilt units within 
the condominiums, and Saddle Ridge is the owner of those units.   
¶44 Our analysis rests on the statutes.  Much of the 
dispute has centered on the proper definition of "unit," which 
we analyze below.  First we look briefly to Chapter 70 of the 
statutes, which authorizes and imposes the property tax.   
¶45 Section 
70.01 
provides 
that 
"[t]axes 
shall 
be 
levied . . . upon all general property . . . ."  The statutes 
then define "general property," which includes "all the taxable 
real 
and 
personal 
property 
defined 
in 
ss. 
70.03 
and 
70.04 . . . ."  Wis. Stat. § 70.02.  Section 70.03 defines "real 
property" as follows: 
70.03 Definition of real property. "Real property", 
"real estate" and "land", when used in chs. 70 to 76, 
78 and 79, include not only the land itself but all 
buildings and improvements thereon, and all fixtures 
and rights and privileges appertaining thereto, except 
that for the purpose of time-share property, as 
defined in s. 707.02(32), real property does not 
include recurrent exclusive use and occupancy on a 
periodic basis or other rights, including, but not 
limited to, membership rights, vacation services and 
club memberships.  
¶46 Saddle Ridge, however, does not make an argument under 
Wis. Stat. § 70.03 defining real property.23  Rather, it contends 
that the Condominium Ownership Act, read together with the terms 
                                                 
23 The Town at one point in its brief asserts that 
regardless of who owns the land or units, Saddle Ridge owns 
significant rights of privileges, including the right to develop 
the declared units and to sell them.  Because our analysis under 
the Condominium Ownership Act resolves this case, we do not 
address this undeveloped argument. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
16 
 
of the condominium declarations, made the Town's assessment of 
the unbuilt parcels improper.   
¶47 Saddle Ridge's principal argument is that the 41 
parcels for which it was taxed were not "units" because there 
was no building and only built "units" could be taxed under the 
terms of the Condominium Ownership Act, read together with the 
declarations for these condominiums.  Saddle Ridge argues that 
without buildings, the tax parcels here are only vacant land and 
that all of the land within the condominiums is part of the 
common elements, properly taxed to the owners of the built 
units.  
¶48 "Units" within a condominium are indeed important in 
the analysis for assessment of property taxes.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 703.21(1) 
declares: 
"Every 
unit 
and 
its 
percentage 
of 
undivided interest in the common elements" is a separately 
taxable parcel.  Furthermore, no part of the common elements 
"shall be deemed to be a parcel separate from the unit."  
Section 703.21(1) reads as follows:  
703.21 Separate taxation.  (1) Every unit and its 
percentage 
of 
undivided 
interest 
in 
the 
common 
elements shall be deemed to be a parcel and shall be 
subject to separate assessments and taxation by each 
assessing unit and special district for all types of 
taxes authorized by law including, but not limited to, 
special levies based on the value of property and 
special 
assessments. 
Neither 
the 
building, 
the 
property nor any of the common elements shall be 
deemed to be a parcel separate from the unit. 
 
¶49 To determine whether the tax parcels assessed here 
were taxed in compliance with Wis. Stat. § 703.21(1), we must 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
17 
 
determine whether each parcel taxed by the Town was in fact a 
unit and that "neither . . . the property nor any of the common 
elements" was taxed as a parcel separate from a unit. 
¶50 Saddle Ridge's argument that there can be no unit 
without a building relies principally on the definition of 
"unit" contained within the three condominium declarations.  The 
declarations contain virtually identical definitions of "unit."  
An individual unit is defined as "that part of a building" 
within the "the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls."  The 
definition of "unit" in the declarations is as follows: 
Definition of Unit.  A unit is that part of a building 
intended for individual, private use, comprised of one 
or more cubicles of air at one or more levels of space 
having 
outer 
boundaries 
formed 
by 
the 
interior 
surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, 
windows, window frames, doors and door frames of the 
units, including the basement area within a unit, as 
said boundaries are shown on the building and floor 
plans attached hereto . . . together with all fixtures 
and improvements therein contained. 
¶51 More persuasively, the Town relies principally on the 
statutory definition of a "unit" contained in Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.02(15).  The statutory definition does not define "unit" 
in terms of a building.  It defines "unit" as "a part of a 
condominium 
intended 
for 
any 
type 
of 
independent 
use."  
Wisconsin Stat. § 703.02(15) defines "unit" as follows: 
"Unit" means a part of a condominium intended for any 
type of independent use, including one or more 
cubicles of air at one or more levels of space or one 
or more rooms or enclosed spaces located on one or 
more floors, or parts thereof, in a building.  A unit 
may include 2 or more noncontiguous areas.    
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
18 
 
¶52 If a provision in the declaration conflicts with a 
statutory provision, the statutory provision is controlling.  
According to Wis. Stat. § 703.30(4), "[i]f there is any conflict 
between any provisions of any condominium instruments . . . and 
any provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter 
shall control."  Thus the statutory definition of "unit" trumps 
the definition in the condominium declarations.   
¶53 Saddle Ridge argues that the latter part of the 
definition of "unit" in Wis. Stat. § 703.02(15) includes the 
phrase "in a building" and therefore that the statutory 
definition of "unit," like the declaration definition, also 
requires a building.  This argument is not a persuasive or 
reasonable reading of the statute.  The statutory phrase "in a 
building" appears in a clause of the definition introduced by 
the word "including" that gives non-exhaustive illustrations of 
a "unit."   
¶54 Saddle Ridge also argues that the definition of "unit" 
in the declarations should be applied because the Wisconsin 
Property Assessment Manual advises that "the assessor should 
look at the condominium declaration" to "detail what are common 
elements and how these elements are allocated to each individual 
unit."24   
                                                 
24 Bureau of Assessment Practices, Wis. Dep't of Revenue, 
Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual 8-51 (2009) (hereinafter 
Manual).   
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
19 
 
¶55 This argument is not persuasive.  The Manual does not 
provide any reason why the definition of "unit" in the 
condominium declarations should trump the definition in the 
statute.  The Manual's advice about what the assessor "should" 
do when determining how to assign value to a unit presupposes 
the existence of the unit.   
¶56 The assessor looks to the tax rolls to determine the 
parcels that are to be valued.  The Manual provides, "Each unit 
in a condominium must be listed in the real estate assessment 
roll . . . . Since a specific piece of land is generally not 
bought and sold with each condominium unit, it is generally not 
possible to have a legal description that describes a specific 
piece of land for each unit."25   
¶57 The unbuilt units at issue here are in the real estate 
assessment roll with assigned tax parcel numbers.  Although 
Saddle Ridge protests that the Town taxed the vacant land, which 
                                                                                                                                                             
The statutes give authority to the Manual.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 73.03(2a) provides, in part, that it is a duty of the 
Department of Revenue to prepare and publish assessment manuals.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(1) provides, in part, that "[r]eal 
property shall be valued by the assessor in the manner specified 
in the Wisconsin property assessment manual provided under s. 
73.03(2a) . . . ." 
25 Manual at 8-50.  
The 
Manual 
also 
contemplates 
that 
the 
condominium 
declaration itself may have value, irrespective of any physical 
construction.  In describing the "Cost Approach" as one means to 
assess condominium property, the manual states that "the 
assessor should determine an appropriate amount for attorney 
fees, surveys, and other administrative expenses necessary to 
create individual ownership."  Manual at 8-53.  
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
20 
 
is part of the condominium's common elements, Judge Dykman's 
dissent at the court of appeals correctly observes that "[t]hat 
is just incorrect."26  Rather, "the property tax assessment was 
not for 'vacant land' or, for that matter, any land at all.  In 
the column titled 'Acres,' the forty-one units were each shown 
as containing 0.0000 acres of land.  In reality, the assessment 
was for forty-one 'units' that Saddle Ridge owned . . . ."27   
¶58 The Board's treating these declared but unbuilt units 
as 
units 
for 
property 
tax 
purposes 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 703.02(15) and 703.21 is supported by Aluminum Industries 
Corp. v Camelot Trails Condominium Corp., 194 Wis. 2d 574, 535 
N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995).  This case interprets Wis. Stat. 
§ 703.02(15) and is discussed by both parties.   
¶59 The question decided in Aluminum Industries was not 
whether owners of unbuilt condominium units were properly 
assessed for property taxes but whether "a condominium property 
on which no construction has taken place is a 'unit' subject to 
assessment for common expenses" assessed by the condominium 
association under Wis. Stat. § 703.16(2).28  Section 703.16(2)(a) 
of the Condominium Ownership Act provides that these assessments 
are to be collected "against the unit owners in proportion to 
                                                 
26 Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Review for Town of Pacific, 
No. 2007AP2886, unpublished slip op., ¶24 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 
27, 2009) (Dykman, J., dissenting). 
27 Id. 
28 Aluminum Indus. Corp. v. Camelot Trails Condo. Corp., 194 
Wis. 2d 574, 576-77, 535 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995). 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
21 
 
their percentage interests in the common elements or as 
otherwise provided in the declaration"  (emphasis added). 
¶60 In other words, the issue in Aluminum Industries was 
whether condominium property on which no construction had taken 
place 
constituted 
"units" 
for 
purposes 
of 
the 
statutory 
assessment for common expenses, not for purposes of property 
tax.29  The court of appeals examined the statute and concluded, 
"We read nothing in the definitions of 'unit owner'30 or 'unit'31 
to suggest their limitation to constructed units . . . . Indeed, 
the statute explicitly refers to 'a part' that is 'intended for 
any type of independent use, including one or more cubicles of 
air.'  Clearly and unambiguously . . . that definition includes 
condominium 
land 
intended 
for 
construction 
but 
on 
which 
construction has not been started or completed."32  
¶61 The court in Aluminum Industries then examined the 
declaration 
and 
determined 
that 
it 
allocated 
assessments 
differently from the statute.  Section 703.16(2) allowed the 
declaration to provide a different method of assessment than the 
statutes 
provided. 
 
Adhering 
to 
the 
provisions 
of 
the 
declaration, as allowed by  Wis. Stat. § 703.16(2), the court of 
                                                 
29 According to the briefs in Aluminum Industries, the owner 
of the unbuilt condominium units paid property taxes on its 
unbuilt units, much as Saddle Ridge has paid taxes on the 
parcels at issue here for some years without objection. 
30 Wis. Stat. § 703.02(17). 
31 Wis. Stat. § 703.02(15). 
32 Aluminum Indus., 194 Wis. 2d at 582-83. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
22 
 
appeals relieved the owner of the unconstructed units of payment 
of assessments to the condominium association.   
¶62 By contrast, however, the separate taxation provision 
in Wis. Stat. § 703.21 provides no such flexibility.  Each unit 
and its percentage interest in the common elements is a tax 
parcel and is separately taxed.  The declaration is not free to 
alter this "separate taxation" provision.  
¶63 Aluminum Industries compels the conclusion that each 
"unit" identified in the condominium declaration is a "unit" for 
purposes of separate taxation under Wis. Stat. § 703.21, 
regardless of whether the unit has been constructed.  We 
conclude, as did the court of appeals in Aluminum Industries, 
that for purposes of identifying the "unit" as defined in Wis. 
Stat. § 703.02(15), a unit may exist without a building.   
¶64 In addition to these arguments, Saddle Ridge asserts 
that the unbuilt units do not meet the Condominium Act's 
definition of "property" as meaning "unimproved land, land 
together with improvements on it or improvements without the 
underlying land."  Wis. Stat. § 703.02(14).  Saddle Ridge argues 
that under this definition, only land and improvements qualify 
as "property," and that therefore only land and improvements, 
not unbuilt units, can be assessed for property tax.   
¶65 We are not persuaded by this argument.  Wisconsin 
Stat. § 703.04 provides that "[a] unit, together with its 
undivided interest in the common elements, for all purposes 
constitutes real property."  We have concluded that the declared 
but unbuilt units are "units" within the meaning of chapter 703.  
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
23 
 
Wisconsin Stat. § 703.04, declaring that a unit is real property 
"for all purposes," forecloses Saddle Ridge's argument that a 
unit is not property for purposes of property taxation.  
¶66 Furthermore, Saddle Ridge's interpretation of "unit" 
is contrary to the Condominium Ownership Act, under which each 
unit owner bears the tax burden for his or her own undivided 
interest in the common elements of the condominium but no unit 
owner is required to pay more than his or her share.   
¶67 As noted, Wis. Stat. § 703.21(1) makes each unit a 
separate tax parcel, together with its own "undivided interest 
in the common elements."  Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 703.13(1) 
requires that each unit's percentage interest in the common 
elements, must be "set forth in the declaration."  The effect is 
that each unit owner is responsible for his or her own share of 
the taxes but not more than that share. 
¶68 Moreover, "[t]he percentage interests shall have a 
permanent character and . . . may not be changed without the 
written consent of all of the unit owners and their mortgagees."  
Wis. Stat. § 703.13(4).  These requirement appear to have been 
met by the condominium instruments in this case, which establish 
that the percentage interest of the common elements owned by 
each unit is a fixed fraction.  It does not (and can not) change 
over time without consent of the unit owners.  In the 
Declaration for the Saddle Ridge Estates Condominium, for 
example, when there were 48 units declared in the original 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
24 
 
condominium instruments, each unit owner owned a 1/48 percentage 
interest in the common elements.33 
¶69 Therefore, if Saddle Ridge does not pay the taxes 
assessed on the percentage share of each of the declared but 
unbuilt units, then one of two things must happen: either no one 
pays the pro-rata share of taxes for that fraction of the common 
elements or the taxes for that portion of the common elements 
will be shifted to the unit owners of the already-built units.   
¶70 The possibility that by clever use of definitions in a 
condominium declaration a developer could avoid paying taxes on 
a share of the common elements, or that the developer could 
avoid taxes altogether by never constructing a unit, is what 
prompted Judge Dykman to declare Saddle Ridge's interpretation 
                                                 
33 Here it appears from the record that each of the three 
condominiums has been expanded since the original declaration 
was filed and now includes a larger number of units than were 
originally declared.  Wisconsin Stat. § 703.26 provides the 
conditions and requirements for expansion of a condominium, 
which are not at issue in this case.   
Although the amendments to the declaration creating the 
expansion are not in the record, the parties do not dispute that 
the percentage ownership of the common elements in each 
condominium is a fixed fraction.  Each unit owner of a declared 
unit owns a corresponding equal share of the common elements.  
Before the Board of Review, one of the representatives for 
Saddle Ridge explained as follows:  
Gosda: 
At that present time when this was printed, there 
were 48 units in there.  Now there's 132.  We use 
the same division; divide 132 by one . . .  
Man:  
Divide one by 132. 
Gosda: 
Yes.  I said that wrong. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
25 
 
of the law to be the "Holy Grail of real estate taxation."  As 
Judge Dykman explained:  
One reason that declared but unbuilt units must be 
"units" that establish parcels subject to taxation is 
that the majority's result leads to this:  When a 
condominium is "born" by recording a declaration and 
plat (as Saddle Ridge did), there is nothing to tax 
because until something gets built, no units exist.  
This is far from a speculative problem.  [Saddle 
Ridge] explained that Saddle Ridge has "expandable 
areas" where there are no declared units.  The record 
is unclear as to whether these areas are within or 
outside 
Saddle 
Ridge's 
three 
condominiums. . . . [T]hese areas could be used to 
expand one of Saddle Ridge's condominiums or to start 
a new condominium.  Either way, if a declared but 
unbuilt unit does not establish a taxable parcel, the 
Town of Pacific will be unable to tax anything in 
these areas until something is built.  If that time 
is, as Gosda explained, twelve to fifteen years away, 
Saddle Ridge will be able to avoid real estate taxes 
on those areas for that length of time.34 
¶71 The other, equally unacceptable consequence of the 
position argued by Saddle Ridge and adopted by the court of 
appeals would be to shift the tax burden onto the purchasers of 
the earliest condominium units to be built and away from the 
developer.  If only built units pay taxes on the common 
elements, then no taxes would be due until the first unit is 
built.  Thereafter, all of the tax liability for the common 
elements would shift onto the first unit owner to purchase a 
built unit; when the second unit was built, the two unit owners 
would each pay half of the taxes for all of the common elements, 
                                                 
34 Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Review for Town of Pacific, 
No. 2007AP2886, unpublished slip op., ¶40 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 
27, 2009) (Dykman, J., dissenting). 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
26 
 
while the developer continued to pay nothing.  As more units 
were built and purchased, the tax burden on the common elements 
would be continually recalculated.   
¶72 This 
result would violate the separate taxation 
requirement in Wis. Stat. § 703.21 by forcing the early unit 
owners to pay the taxes for the common elements.  It would also 
run counter to the requirement that the percentage interest in 
the 
common 
elements 
(and 
therefore 
the 
resulting 
tax 
responsibility of each unit owner for the common elements) must 
be "permanent in character," because the unit owners' tax 
responsibilities would continue to shift as more units were 
constructed.  Wis. Stat. § 703.13(4).  
¶73 Finally, we note that adopting Saddle Ridge's position 
that "units" do not exist until they are built would create 
uncertainty and administrative difficulties.  Under Saddle 
Ridge's position, every condominium could contest and manipulate 
the exact moment at which a condominium unit is "born."  This 
interpretation would encourage needless litigation over the 
questions of when and whether a "unit" begins to exist for tax 
and other purposes and would permit gamesmanship.   
¶74 In effect, Saddle Ridge would have us apply one 
meaning of the statutory word "unit" to conclude it has met its 
obligations in creating the condominiums, but then would shuffle 
the deck to apply another definition of "unit"——one which the 
developer itself supplies——when the tax bill comes due.  The 
statute does not allow such reshuffling of critical terms. 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
27 
 
¶75 Under chapter 703, the declared units must come into 
legal existence when the condominium instruments are recorded.  
The declaration must identify each unit in the condominium,35 and 
"[e]very unit shall be designated on the condominium plat by the 
unit number."36  Thus the condominium itself cannot exist if its 
units are not declared and described.  Neither the legal 
existence of the units nor their assessment value simply 
disappears until such time as construction is completed. 
¶76 For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the Board 
"acted according to law" in assessing Saddle Ridge for the 
unbuilt units.  Saddle Ridge owns the declared but unbuilt 
condominium units and these unbuilt units are tax parcels, the 
assessment 
value 
of 
which 
is 
assessed 
to 
Saddle 
Ridge.  
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, 
which affirmed the order of the circuit court.  The Board of 
Review for the Town of Pacific got it right.  Saddle Ridge's 
petition for a writ of certiorari should have been denied by the 
circuit court.   
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
                                                 
35 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 703.09(1)(c) 
provides 
that 
"[a] 
condominium 
declaration 
shall 
contain . . . . 
A 
general 
description of each unit, including its perimeters, location and 
any other data sufficient to identify it with reasonable 
certainty." 
36 Wis. Stat. § 703.11(3). 
No. 
2007AP2886   
 
 
 
1