Opinion ID: 1602835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: parties' stipulation

Text: In its first assignment of error, Vitalix argues that TERC erred in rejecting the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. At issue is the parties' stipulation stating that the parcel of land in question, together with any appurtenant structure (`Warehouse Addition'), is owned in fee simple by the City . . . subject only to the leasehold interest of Vitalix. TERC notes that [i]f only the land is described as the `Warehouse Addition' for purposes of the stipulation, the stipulation conforms to the evidence. If `Warehouse Addition' also refers to the warehouse constructed in 2004, it is contrary to the evidence. [4] Because the ownership of the warehouse has bearing on whether it is exempt from taxation, TERC's concern with this stipulation is well founded. The above language[the] parcel of land . . . together with any appurtenant structure (`Warehouse Addition'), is owned in fee simple by the City suggests that the parties could be attempting to stipulate that the Warehouse Addition is owned by the City. Such is a legal conclusion and cannot be the subject of a stipulation between the parties. [4] We conclude that TERC did not err by refusing to consider the parties' stipulation. Vitalix's first assignment of error is without merit.