Opinion ID: 2019471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appropriateness of Summary Judgment.

Text: In order for the defendants to be entitled to summary judgment, it is necessary that the record disclose that there is no material issue of fact to be tried on the question of exemption from tax. Hintz v. Zion Evangelical United Brethren Church (1961), 13 Wis. (2d) 439, 442, 109 N. W. (2d) 61. On the issue of ownership, as hereinbefore pointed out, the averments of the Karow, Lingott, and Eun Taik Yi affidavits tend to establish that the Foundation was the equitable owner of the Stone Manor premises. The defendants, in support of their motion for summary judgment, filed the affidavit of Hugh L. Burdick, city attorney of Lake Geneva. Attached to such affidavit and made a part thereof is a letter which the plaintiff wrote Burdick in August, 1955, in which the plaintiff sets forth the uses to which the Stone Manor premises were put subsequent to 1937, including those made of it by the plaintiff and his wife after title was acquired in the plaintiff's name in 1945. Nowhere in such letter does the plaintiff mention the Foundation. However, construing such letter most favorably to the defendants, the inference to be drawn therefrom merely puts in dispute the Karow, Lingott, and Eun Taik Yi affidavits, thereby demonstrating that there is a disputed issue of material fact which cannot be disposed of by summary judgment. The defendants contend that irrespective of the issue of ownership, the affidavits establish that the property was not exclusively used by the Foundation during the years 1948 to 1955, inclusive. Exclusive use by the Foundation is essential to establish exemption. This makes necessary a resume of the evidentiary facts set forth in the various affidavits bearing on such issue. Stone Manor is a large, ornate, white, stone mansion situated on eight and one-half acres of land on the shore of Lake Geneva. The building itself is 74 by 70 feet and is 65 feet high with 250 feet of veranda area. There are 137 large plate-glass windows, 137 copper screens, and 134 mahogany and bird's-eye maple doors. Altogether, it has over 50 rooms, including kitchens, refrigeration rooms, butlers' pantries, servants' dining room, etc. From 1937 to 1945 the premises were owned and occupied by the Episcopalian Order of St. Ann and operated as a girls' boarding school and summer camp. Such school and summer camp were continued after the plaintiff acquired legal title during the years 1945 to 1947, inclusive. In the summer of 1948 the premises were leased to a Major and Mrs. Brown, who operated the Sherwood Boarding School, who used the premises for a summer school and camp for their students. Since 1949 the premises have been primarily used as the office of the Foundation and as a cultural center for Korean students and Korean educators, many of whom have been furnished free room and board. Some of such Korean students have been paid modest hourly wages to do maintenance work about the premises. Korean music festivals have also been held on the premises. While the plaintiff was in Washington during the Korean War and thereafter, the plaintiff's wife, with the knowledge and approval of the Foundation, has rented some of the rooms during the summer seasons to tourists and non-Korean students in order to obtain money to maintain the premises, which income has proved insufficient for such purpose. Since 1949 the plaintiff's wife has resided on the premises and so has the plaintiff when not in Washington. Much of the foregoing evidence is ambiguous in character in that it is open to different interpretations and inferences. One of these is that all of the afore-described activities carried on in the premises since 1945 by the plaintiff and his wife were done by them in behalf of the Foundation in the furtherance of its objectives. Another equally tenable inference is that many of such activities were the individual acts of the plaintiff and his wife subject to no control on the part of the Foundation. Because of such conflicting inferences, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. The fact that rooms were rented out to tourists and others would not destroy the exemption, if such activity was merely incidental to the primary benevolent uses to which the property was put, and if the income derived therefrom was devoted to maintaining the premises so that such primary benevolent activities could be continued. Madison Particular Council v. Dane County (1944), 246 Wis. 208, 16 N. W. (2d) 811. The defendants attempt to interject the issue that the uses to which the premises have been put violate the zoning ordinance of the city of Lake Geneva. The plaintiff's defense to such claim is that of a continuous prior nonconforming use expressly permitted under the ordinance. Without going into the facts with respect to this side issue, it is enough to state that there is sufficient dispute with respect thereto to prevent such issue being determined by summary judgment. By the Court. Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.