Court Opinion

ID: 9690253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:59:44.155251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:47.829835
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(dissenting). This court stated in State ex rel. North Shore Development Co. v. Axtell (1934), 216 Wis. 153, 157, 256 N. W. 622, and in Buildings Development Co. v. Milwaukee (1937), 225 Wis. 357, 274 N. W. 298, that if there is credible evidence before the board of review that may in any reasonable view support the assessor’s valuation, that valuation must be upheld by the board.
The majority opinion concludes that the assessor, Semrad, gave undue consideration to the intrinsic worth of the bank building rather than to its sale or market value. However, in reaching this conclusion the majority opinion ignores entirely the following testimony of Semrad:
“I placed that building in seventy per cent condition. It is built of good quality brick, face brick on three sides and the workmanship in that building is very good, probably the best that could be obtained at the time that the bank was built. That left a sound value of $37,415, and after making a careful analysis of the location of that bank with respect to others, a resale at twenty per cent left $29,932. In my opinion, that is market value of the bank. I felt that were this bank put up for sale the party owning the bank could easily get that amount of money and accept that amount of money. . . .
“It is the market value we are considering here and I placed a value of $32,570 and that in my opinion is a fair market value. . . .
“I think I have been fair in placing it in its probable present condition and in considering all the elements affecting that property and because I have still added a resale factor which, in my opinion and belief, is a fair market value of that property.”
*614The foregoing quoted testimony of the assessor is ample credible testimony to support the assessment under the decisions of this court, and furthermore, the board of review reduced the assessment $4,570 below that fixed by the assessor.
It was proper for the assessor to consider reproduction cost less depreciation as one of the elements in arriving at market value. This court in State ex rel. North Shore Development Co. v. Axtell, supra, stated (pp. 155, 157):
“Testimony was presented as to ‘cost, depreciation, replacement value, earnings, industrial conditions,’ location, and occupancy, all of which are proper for consideration in determining assessment value. . . .
“The reproduction cost of the building is shown, and this with the admittedly correct assessment of the land, disregarding obsolescence, exceeds by nearly $13,000 the amount of the assessment.”
In State ex rel. Northwestern M. L. Ins. Co. v. Weiher (1922), 177 Wis. 445, 450, 188 N. W. 598, it was stated:
“The relator has criticized quite severely the use of the basic fifty-three cents per cubic foot for large business buildings in Milwaukee. As we understand it, the fifty-three cents per cubic foot was a starting point merely, to which was added or deducted the proper amount, depending upon the character of the construction of the building, the amount of depreciation, obsolescence, the location, and many other elements that would affect the sale value of the building. So used, the basic fifty-three cents per cubic foot was not an arbitrary assessment, but it was a very useful and fair method of insuring such uniformity of valuation as the circumstances would permit.”
We cannot agree with the correctness of the following sentence appearing in the statement of facts preceding the majority opinion:
“Semrad assessed the value of the bank’s property on the basis of sixty-six cents .per cubic foot as against twenty-*615nine cents and thirty-two cents per cubic foot m computing the value of other mercantile buildings in the same business block and of like materials and costing no more at the time of construction or on a reconstruction basis.”
The assessor, Semrad, had been employed by the Wisconsin department of taxation and had had wide experience in assessing approximately thirty different bank buildings throughout the state, and apparently was well versed in present building costs of commercial buildings computed on a cubic-foot basis. In his testimony he pointed out differences in construction between the commercial buildings in New Lisbon on which he placed reproduction costs at thirty-two cents and twenty-nine cents per cubic foot with that of the relator’s bank building on which he placed a sixty-six -cents per cubic foot cost of reproduction and justified such differential. According to Semrad, the other mercantile buildings referred to did have a different construction than the bank building and would cost less on a reproduction basis.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Gehl joins in this dissent.