Opinion ID: 1868189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The DOT's position

Text: ¶ 11 The DOT submits that the appraisal method chosen by the circuit court, which analyzed the summation of the values of various parcels of property, does not meet the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 36.09(6). The DOT argues that the whole of Spiegelberg's property functioned as a single economic entity, a farm comprising 150 acres of land, and consequently the property must be valued as a single entity to properly determine the fair market value of the whole property. ¶ 12 The DOT contends that the unit rule requires that we adopt a single-unit valuation approach to contiguous, commonly-owned tax parcels, as its appraisal has done. It cites Jonas v. State, 19 Wis.2d 638, 121 N.W.2d 235 (1963), in support of this contention. However, our decision in Jonas actually turned on the unity of use, a very different principle from the unit rule. ¶ 13 In Jonas, a seven-acre parcel owned by one corporation and located on the east side of a street was condemned. Id. at 640, 121 N.W.2d 235. A second corporation owned a parcel of one and one-half acres on the west of that same street. Id. The corporations operated as one concern. Id. Jonas contended that there was a unity of use between the two parcels and that in order to fully compensate for the damages arising from the condemnation, both parcels had to be valued. Id. We concluded that it was possible that when two or more distinct parcels . . . are used as a unit, the parcels may be treated as one and the taking of part or all of one of them treated as a partial taking of the combined whole. Id. at 642, 121 N.W.2d 235. ¶ 14 The possible application of the unity of use rule in condemnation cases does not support the DOT's assertion that Spiegelberg's entire farm must be valued as a single parcel because all of it has been used as a farm. The unity of use rule permits a condemnee to receive compensation when a taking from one property must be considered in terms of its effect on another property, in order for those affected by the taking to be fully compensated. See City of Milwaukee v. Roadster LLC, 2003 WI App 131, ¶ 18, 265 Wis.2d 518, 666 N.W.2d 524 (concluding that a parking lot that was condemned was occupied by its owner who used it for access to a business on an adjacent lot; and therefore, the city took an essential portion of the business when it took the parking lot). The unity of use rule does not require that property that currently has a single use be valued only for that single use. ¶ 15 Other cases cited by the DOT do refer to the unit rule, which differs from the unity of use rule. Unit rule cases address the separate interests that may be found in a condemned property. For example, a property may have a fee owner and one or more leaseholders. Those properties that are subject to multiple interests are given one value for the entirety of the condemned property and then that value is apportioned among those who have an interest in the property. See, e.g., Van Asten v. DOT, 214 Wis.2d 135, 140, 571 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App.1997) (concluding that the unit rule . . . stems from the common law theory that anything that was attached to a freehold was annexed to and considered to be a part of it. . . . The unit rule requires that improved real estate be valued in respect to its gross value as a single entity as if there was only one owner.). This is a far cry from the DOT's position, which is if one person owns multiple parcels that are affected by a partial taking, all of the parcels must be valued as though they were one parcel. [4] There is only one interest in the property for which Spiegelberg seeks compensation, her fee simple interest.