Justia.com Opinion Summary: In 2005, after the Town of Linwood assessed property owned by Stupar River for property tax purposes, Stupar River filed an objection with the town Board of Review, arguing that the 2005 assessment was significantly higher than its fair market value in violation of Wis. Stat. 70.32(1). The Board affirmed the assessed value. The circuit court remanded the action to the Board with instructions to reassess the subject property. The circuit court then affirmed the Board's determination. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the assessment upheld by the Board was made according to law and was supported by a reasonable view of the evidence.
Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
<![CDATA[
2011 WI 82
SUPREME COURT
CASE NO.:
COMPLETE TITLE:
OF
WISCONSIN
2009AP191
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Stupar River LLC,
Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
Town of Linwood Portage County Board of Review,
Respondent-Respondent.
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Reported at: 323 Wis.2d 278, 779 N.W.2d 724
(Ct. App. 2010 – Unpublished)
OPINION FILED:
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
July 22, 2011
April 19, 2011
Circuit
Portage
Thomas T. Flugaur
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the petitioner-appellant-petitioner there were briefs
by
Thomas
W.
Bertz
and
Anderson,
O’Brien,
Bertz,
Skrenes
&
Golla, Stevens Point and oral argument by Thomas W. Bertz.
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief by Maris
Rushevics, Stevens Point and oral argument by Maris Rushevics.
2011 WI 82
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification.
The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No.
2009AP191
(L.C. No.
2006CV22)
STATE OF WISCONSIN
:
IN SUPREME COURT
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Stupar River LLC,
FILED
Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner,
JUL 22, 2011
v.
Town of Linwood Portage County Board of Review,
A. John Voelker
Acting Clerk of Supreme
Court
Respondent-Respondent.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
¶1
MICHAEL
J.
GABLEMAN,
J.
Stupar
Affirmed.
River
LLC
(Stupar
River) seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of
appeals
affirming
a
decision
of
the
Portage
County
Circuit
Court, Thomas T. Flugaur, Judge, upholding the 2005 property tax
assessment
of
the
Wisconsin
River
Country
Club
(the
subject
property).1
1
State ex rel. Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Bd. of
Review, No. 2009AP191, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Dec.
30, 2009).
No.
¶2
2009AP191
Stupar River argues that the Town of Linwood Board of
Review (Board) improperly upheld the assessment of the subject
property for the 2005 tax year.
Stupar River alleges that this
assessment was at a level significantly higher than its fair
market value2 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1) (2003-04).3
We conclude that the assessment upheld by the Board was made
according to law and was supported by a reasonable view of the
evidence, and affirm the court of appeals.
I.
¶3
BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed for the purposes of
this appeal.
¶4
In 2001, Stupar River, a Wisconsin limited liability
company, purchased the subject property in the Town of Linwood
for $830,000.
In 2002, the Town of Linwood assessed the subject
2
This court has determined that "for the purposes of
assessing real property . . . 'full value' . . . means market
value. The terms 'full value,' 'market value' and 'fair market
value' are synonymous and interchangeable in the opinions."
Flood v. Vill. of Lomira Bd. of Review, 153 Wis. 2d 428, 435,
451 N.W.2d 422 (1990).
3
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated.
2
No.
property for property tax purposes at $1,831,500.4
filed
an
objection
assessment
was
not
with
equal
the
to
Board
fair
arguing
market
2009AP191
Stupar River
that
value.
the
The
2002
Board
conducted a hearing on Stupar River's objection and affirmed the
assessed value5 of $1,831,500.
¶5
certiorari
Stupar
River
pursuant
to
then
Wis.
filed
a
petition
for
Stat.
§ 70.47(13).On
a
writ
October
of
10,
2003, the Portage County Circuit Court, John V. Finn, Judge, set
aside the 2002 assessment, concluding the valuation "was not
made on the statutory basis," and remanded the case to the Board
for a reassessment for the 2002 tax year.
The Board appealed
the decision of the circuit court to the court of appeals, which
on April 21, 2005, reversed the circuit court and reinstated the
Board's valuation for the 2002 tax year.
State ex rel. Stupar
4
On September 24, 2002, Stupar River filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari, arguing that the Board erred by failing to
assess the subject property at its recent sale price of
$830,000.
Stupar River's argument centered on the fact that
Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1) requires assessors to value real property
at the full market value that could ordinarily be obtained at
private sale. The court of appeals concluded, however, that the
2001 sale of the subject property for $830,000 was not an armslength
transaction
and,
accordingly,
upheld
the
Board's
assessment at $1,831,500.
State ex rel. Stupar River LLC v.
Town of Linwood Bd. of Review, No. 2004AP108, ¶¶19, 24,
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2005).
5
"Assessed Value" is defined as "[a] dollar amount assigned
to the taxable property . . . by the assessor for the purpose of
taxation . . . .
[A] levy is applied directly against [the
assessed value of the property] to determine the tax due."
Bureau of Assessment Practices, Wis. Dep’t of Revenue, Wisconsin
Property Assessment Manual, G-1 (2011).
A levy is "[t]he
imposition of a fine or tax." Black's Law Dictionary, 919 (7th
ed. 1999).
3
No.
2009AP191
River LLC v. Town of Linwood Bd. of Review, No. 2004AP108, ¶24,
unpublished
decision
slip
of
the
op.
(Wis.
court
of
Ct.
App.
appeals
Apr.
21,
reinstating
2005).
the
This
2002
tax
assessment of the Board was never appealed, and is not before us
today.
¶6
While the litigation challenging the 2002 assessment
was pending, the subject property was assessed for the 2003 and
2004
tax
years
$1,831,500.
at
the
same
value
as
2002——that
is,
at
Stupar River paid its property taxes in 2003 and
2004 under protest.
¶7
For the 2005 tax year, the property assessment of the
subject property was increased to $1,893,400.6
2005,
Stupar
River
filed
a
written
On October 1,
objection
to
the
2005
assessment with the Board, arguing that the 2005 assessment was
not equal to the fair market value of the subject property.
November
16,
2005,
the
Board,
pursuant
to
On
Wis.
Stat.
heard
sworn
§ 70.47(7)(a), conducted an evidentiary hearing.
¶8
At
the
evidentiary
hearing,
the
Board
testimony relating to three competing assessments of the subject
6
This figure is representative of a $61,900 increase in the
assessed value for 2005 in comparison to tax years 2002, 2003,
and 2004. The record indicates that the reason for the increase
was that the value of timber located upon the subject property
had increased by this amount.
4
No.
2009AP191
Scott Williams, an appraiser7 for the Town of Linwood,
property.
testified that
based
upon
property at $1,500,000.
his
review,
he
valued
the
subject
Daniel Mielke, the assessor for the
Town of Linwood, who concluded that the assessed value of the
subject property in 2005 was $1,893,400, testified in support of
his assessment.
Finally, Steven Vitale, on behalf of Stupar
River, submitted a written appraisal document, which valued the
subject property at $1,190,000.
¶9
On
November
21,
2005,
the
Board
upheld
the
2005
assessment.
¶10
review of
Stupar
River
subsequently
the Board's November
21,
petitioned
2005
for
certiorari
determination.
The
circuit court gave its oral ruling on Stupar River's petition on
March 27, 2008.
By this time, the 2006 and 2007 assessments of
the subject property were also complete.8
Both the 2006 and
7
A certified property appraiser is authorized to inspect
and appraise real and personal property for assessment purposes,
but is not authorized to perform the duties of an assessor.
Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, 2-2 (12/2010).
In
contrast, a certified assessor is authorized to perform the
duties of a property appraiser and is additionally responsible
for all assessed values of real and personal property in the
assessment district for which the individual is the statutory
assessor. Id.
8
The record indicates that the delay between the November
16, 2005 evidentiary hearing before the Board and the March 27,
2008 oral ruling by the circuit court was due to difficulty in
obtaining a transcript of the 2005 hearing.
Board of review
hearings are typically tape recorded, and later transcribed if
the matter is appealed.
As Judge Flugaur noted, "[i]t's the
same transcript that . . . one secretary said she would prefer
to run naked through rush-hour traffic in downtown Chicago
rather than finish typing it."
5
No.
2007
assessments
of
the
subject
property
were
2009AP191
$1,435,900——a
decrease of $457,500 from the 2005 assessment and a decrease of
$394,500
from the
2002,
2003,
and
2004
assessments.
Stupar
River did not challenge the accuracy of the 2006 assessment at
the circuit court.
Instead, Stupar River argued that the 2006
assessment established as a matter of law that the assessments
for 2003, 2004,
and
2005
were
significantly
higher
than
the
subject property's fair market value.9
¶11
to
the
On May 12, 2008, the circuit court remanded the action
Board
with
instructions
to
"reassess
the
[subject
property] for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 to be consistent
with
the
assessment
explanation
as
to
for
why
2006 . . . or
the
property’s
provide
assessed
a
rational
value
has
decreased in value."
¶12
In response to the order of the circuit court, the
Board submitted a letter from Mielke, which explained that the
comparatively lower amount of the 2006 assessment was not due to
any change in the fair market value of the subject property.
He
explained that, upon review of the Department of Revenue Major
Class Comparison Report issued in 2005, he had concluded it was
necessary to lower the total assessed value of the commercial
9
The parties dispute whether the 2003 and 2004 assessments
are properly before us. Stupar River makes the same argument in
regard to these assessments that it made in regard to the 2005
assessment. Like the court of appeals, we do not address this
issue because we reject Stupar River's argument that the 2005
assessment of the subject property was excessive in violation of
Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).
6
No.
2009AP191
class10 of properties in order to "bring it back in line with the
other
classes
assessment
of
was
properties."
lower than
Mielke
the
2005
stated
that
assessment
the
because
2006
of an
overall downward adjustment he made to the assessed values of
all of the commercial class properties in the Town of Linwood.
¶13
reduction
In
in
response
to
the
assessment
2006
Mielke's
letter
in
explaining
comparison
to
the
the
2005
assessment, Stupar River submitted a letter from Carol Kuehn, a
retired assessor from Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
In her letter,
Kuehn argued that Mielke's letter did not provide a rational
explanation for the subject property's lower assessment in 2006.
Kuehn's
letter
reducing
the
stated
subject
"Mielke's
claimed
property's
methodology"
assessment
in
2006
for
was
"misguided and not rational" for the following reasons: (1) the
aggregate value of the commercial class of property in the Town
of Linwood is not more than 5% of the fair market value of the
10
Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part:
The assessor shall segregate into the following classes on
the basis of use . . . :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5m.
6.
7.
Residential.
Commercial.
Manufacturing.
Agricultural.
Undeveloped.
Agricultural forest.
Productive forest land.
Other.
8.
7
No.
2009AP191
taxation district,11 and therefore, Mielke was not statutorily
required
to
adjust
the
commercial
class
of
properties;12
(2)
Mielke improperly reduced the subject property by 24%, while all
other commercial properties were reduced by 36%; and (3) because
Mielke assessed the subject property in 2006 at $1,435,900, and
"[b]oth the assessor and the Department of Revenue indicate that
the commercial class of property has not decreased in value"
from 2005 to 2006, the accurate value for the 2005 assessment
was $1,435,900.
¶14
On October 28, 2008, the circuit court concluded that
the Board provided a sufficient explanation for the reduction of
the 2006 assessment in comparison with the 2005 assessment and
affirmed the Board's determination.
On appeal, the court of
appeals concluded that "[t]he reduction in the 2006 assessment
was not based on a change
[subject] property, but
was
in
the
based
fair
on
an
market
attempt
value
to
of
the
equalize
market value in response to a Wisconsin Department of Revenue
report."
Stupar River LLC, No. 2009AP191, ¶8.
The court of
appeals held that, because the 2006 assessment was not reduced
11
Wisconsin Stat. § 70.05(5)(a)3. defines "any class of
property that includes more than 5% of the full value of the
taxation district" as a "major class of property."
12
Contrary to Kuehn's argument, Wis. Stat. § 70.05(5)(d)
does not require that the aggregate value of the commercial
class be within 10% of the other classes. Instead, the statute
requires that the "assessed value of each major class of
property of a taxation district" must be "within 10% of the full
value of the same major class of property . . . during the 4year period consisting of the current year and the 3 preceding
years . . . ." Wis. Stat. § 70.05(5)(d).
8
No.
2009AP191
in order to reflect a change in the subject property's fair
market
value,
inaccurate
Stupar
assumption.
River's
Id.,
argument
¶9.
was
premised
Accordingly,
the
on
an
court
of
appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court.
¶15
Stupar River then petitioned this court for review,
which we granted on September 22, 2010.
II.
¶16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Stupar River asks this court to overturn the Board's
decision to uphold the property tax assessment of the subject
property for the 2005 tax year.
Wis.
Stat.
§ 70.47(13),
we
In a certiorari action under
review
the
Board's
decision
independently, but benefiting from the analyses of the circuit
court and court of appeals.
ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Bd. of Review
of the Village of Fontana-On-Geneva Lake, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 335,
603
N.W.2d 217
omitted).
In
(1999)
our
(internal
review,
we
quotations
look
for
and
"any
citations
error
in
the
proceedings of the board which renders the assessment or the
proceedings void."
Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13).
Our review is a
"strictly limited" one, ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 231 Wis. 2d at 335,
confined only to determining whether the Board's actions were:
(1)
within
its
jurisdiction;
(2)
according
to
law;
(3)
arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will
and not its judgment; and (4) supported by evidence such that
the Board might reasonably make the order or determination in
question.
State ex rel. Mitchell Aero, Inc. v. Bd. of Review,
74 Wis. 2d 268, 281-82, 246 N.W.2d 521 (1976).
argument
centers
on
the
second
9
of
these
Stupar River's
four
elements,
No.
2009AP191
contending that the Board failed to act according to law, and
that is consequently our focus as well.
¶17 If
the
assessment
is
made
in
accordance
with
the
statutory mandate, it must be upheld if it can be supported by
any reasonable view of the evidence.
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin,
Inc. v. Kenosha Cnty. Bd. of Review, 184 Wis. 2d 541, 555, 516
N.W.2d 695
(1994).
"In
determining
whether
there
is
enough
evidence to sustain the assessment, the presumptions are all in
favor of the rightful action of the Board."
ABKA Ltd. P'ship,
231 Wis. 2d at 335 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
¶18
Stupar River argues that the Board, by upholding the
2005 assessment, violated Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).
Board
followed
the
statute
in
making
its
Whether the
assessment
is
a
question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.
Adams Outdoor Adver., Ltd. v. City of Madison, 294 Wis. 2d 441,
¶26, 717 N.W.2d 803.
III. DISCUSSION
¶19
according
The
to
question
before
law
it
when
us
is
upheld
whether
the
2005
the
Board
assessment
acted
of
the
subject property.
¶20
Stupar River argues that (1) the assessed value of a
property must, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1), equal that
property's fair market value, (2) Mielke submitted to the Board
that the
"about
fair market value
the
assessed
same"
value
of
from
the
2003
of
the
through
subject
subject
2006,
property
property
(3)
was
in
remained
2006,
the
$1,435,900,
and
therefore, (4) the assessed values of the subject property in
10
No.
2009AP191
2003 ($1,831,500), 2004 ($1,831,500), and 2005 ($1,893,400) must
necessarily
property.
be
above
the
fair
market
value
of
the
subject
Accordingly, Stupar River contends the assessments
for 2003, 2004, and 2005 are overassessments in violation of the
plain language of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).13
¶21
Mielke's
The
Board
explanation
counters
that
this
the
argument
reduction
by
in
pointing
the
to
subject
property's assessed value from 2005 ($1,893,400) to the assessed
value
in
2006
adjustment"
to
($1,435,900)
the
total
was
based
assessed
on
value
"an
of
overall
all
class
commercial
property in the Town of Linwood, and that the reduction was not
13
Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(1) provides:
Real property shall be valued by the assessor in the
manner specified in the Wisconsin property assessment
manual provided under s. 73.03(2a) from actual view or
from the best information that the assessor can
practicably obtain, at the full value which could
ordinarily be obtained therefor at private sale. In
determining the value, the assessor shall consider
recent arm's-length sales of the property to be
assessed if according to professionally acceptable
appraisal practices those sales conform to recent
arm's-length sales of reasonably comparable property;
recent arm's-length sales of reasonably comparable
property;
and
all
factors
that,
according
to
professionally acceptable appraisal practices, affect
the value of the property to be assessed.
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1), an "assessor's task is
to identify the market value of a fee simple interest as
described by the Property Assessment Manual, and which reflects
the 'full value' that could ordinarily be obtained at a private
sale . . . ." Walgreen Co. v. City of Madison, 2008 WI 80, ¶20,
311 Wis. 2d 158, 752 N.W.2d 687.
11
No.
2009AP191
done in an attempt to reflect the fair market value of the
subject property.14
¶22
Stupar
reasoning,
§ 70.32(1),
the
River
2006
equal
argues
that,
regardless
must,
pursuant
assessment
the
subject
property's
fair
of
to
Mielke's
Wis.
market
Stat.
value.
This argument rests on the false premise that the assessed value
of a property must equal the fair market value of that property
in order to comply with Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).
¶23 Without question, assessors must base assessments of
real property on
Stat.
the
§ 70.32(1).
property's
However,
as
fair
market
value.
the
plain
language
Wis.
See
of
the
Property Assessment Manual15 (Manual) makes clear, a property's
fair market value is not synonymous with its assessed value.
Manual,
1-28.
The
Manual
explains
that
"[i]n
most
cases
individual property assessments are at different levels than the
value standard"——that is to say, different than the property's
fair market value.16
Manual, 1-22 (emphasis added).
In fact,
14
Stupar River's criticism of the 2006 assessment is
irrelevant because Stupar River has never brought a legal action
challenging the validity of that assessment.
Accordingly, the
validity of the 2006 assessment is not before us.
15
Wisconsin Stat. § 70.32(1) requires that assessors adhere
to the Manual, absent conflicting law.
See Walgreen, 311
Wis. 2d 158, ¶3.
16
The Manual describes the "value standard" as:
12
No.
2009AP191
the Manual notes that "both assessed and fair market values are
shown on property tax bills."
¶24
Manual, 1-28.
The Department of Revenue discusses this concept in
its standard "Assessment Objection Procedure" form:
Wisconsin
statutes
require
all
non-agricultural
property to be assessed at full market value as of
January 1 each year. The courts have determined that
assessments at a percentage of full market value are
acceptable when applied uniformly.
Therefore, to
determine if your assessment is fair, you must analyze
it in relation to full market value.
(Emphasis added.)
Simply put, a property's assessed value is
based on fair market value but a property's assessed value is
The basis for the methods used in estimating values
for the equalized or assessed values.
There are two
basic values used in the process, the market value
('full value' for real property and 'true cash value'
for personal property), which is the basis for value
of all property except agricultural land.
The market
value is based on the most probable selling price of
the property.
Agricultural land, as defined by
administrative rule, is based on a valuation standard
which analyzes the ability to generate income as it is
currently being used, hence 'use value'.
Manual, G-6.
13
No.
not
necessarily
axiomatic
that
equal
to
assessors
its
may
fair
assign
market
to
value.17
taxable
2009AP191
It
is
property
an
assessed value of less than 100 percent of the property's fair
market value18 when
Stupar
River's
applied
argument
uniformly.19
that
the
2005
We
therefore
assessment
reject
was
an
overassessment in violation of the plain language of Wis. Stat.
17
See, e.g., Rite-Hite Corp. v. Bd. of Review of Vill. of
Brown Deer, 216 Wis. 2d 189, 197, 575 N.W.2d 721 (Ct. App. 1997)
(residential, commercial, and manufacturing properties assigned
assessed values at 87 percent of fair market value); Noah's Ark
Family Park v. Bd. of Review of the Vill. of Delton, 210
Wis. 2d 301, 307, 565 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1997) (commercial
properties assigned assessed values between 19 and 91 percent
below their fair market values); State ex. rel. N/S Assocs. v.
Bd. of Review of Vill. of Greendale, 164 Wis. 2d 31, 40, 473
N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1991) (commercial property assigned an
assessed value of 88 percent of fair market value); Fontana v.
Vill. of Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, 107 Wis. 2d 226, 229, 319
N.W.2d 900 (Ct. App. 1982) (commercial property assigned an
assessed value of 80 percent of fair market value); Mitchell
Aero, 74 Wis. 2d at 271 (commercial property assigned an
assessed value of 55 percent of fair market value); State v.
Jordon, 182 Wis. 645, 197 N.W. 189 (1924) (residential property
assigned an assessed value of 50 percent of fair market value).
18
We have previously held that, pursuant to Wis. Stat.
§ 70.32(1), an assessor may not assign a property an assessed
value greater than the property's fair market value. Flood, 153
Wis. 2d at 431 ("We also hold that sec. 70.32(1) proscribes
assessing real property in excess of market value.").
19
The uniformity clause of the Wisconsin Constitution,
found in art. VIII, § 1, provides: "The rule of taxation shall
be uniform but the legislature may empower cities, villages or
towns to collect and return taxes on real estate located therein
by optional methods."
This provision has been interpreted to
"require[] that the method or mode of taxing real property must
be applied uniformly to all classes of property within the tax
district."
State ex rel. Levine v. Bd. of Review, 191 Wis. 2d
363, 371, 528 N.W.2d 424 (1995).
14
No.
§ 70.32(1),
and
conclude
that
the
2005
assessment
2009AP191
was
made
according to law.
¶25
Having concluded that the 2005 assessment was made in
accordance with the statutory mandate of Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1),
we must uphold that assessment if it can be supported by any
reasonable view of the evidence.
555.
Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at
In determining whether there is enough evidence to sustain
the 2005 assessment, "the presumptions are all in favor of the
ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 231 Wis. 2d at
rightful action of the Board."
335 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
As such, the
burden rests upon Stupar River to prove that the Board lacked
sufficient evidence to uphold the 2005 assessment.
¶26
During the November 16, 2005 evidentiary hearing, the
Board heard lengthy sworn testimony from Mielke regarding the
2005
assessment.
During
his
testimony,
Mielke
provided
a
detailed account of how he reached his determination that the
subject property's assessed value was $1,893,400.
also
included
several
responses
to
questions
His testimony
raised
by
the
Board, as well as by counsel representing Stupar River and the
Town of Linwood regarding his methodology and reasoning.
Board
also
heard
sworn
testimony
supporting
the
The
competing
appraisals from Williams and Vitale, to which Mielke responded
in turn.
¶27
Stupar
River's
only
argument
in
support
of
its
challenge to the correctness of the 2005 assessment centers upon
a comparison of that assessment to the 2006 assessment.
Beyond
this comparison, Stupar River fails to point to any evidence in
15
No.
2009AP191
the record that would lead this court to question the accuracy
of the 2005 assessment and, therefore, Stupar River has failed
to overcome the strong presumption "in favor of the rightful
action
of
the
Board."
Waste
Mgmt.,
184
Wis. 2d at
555.
Therefore, after reviewing the record, we conclude that the 2005
assessment is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence.
¶28
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
Board
properly
upheld the 2005 assessment and we affirm the court of appeals.
IV. CONCLUSION
¶29
Stupar River argues that the Board improperly upheld
the assessment of the subject property for the 2005 tax year.
Stupar River alleges that this assessment was at a level that
was significantly higher than its fair market value in violation
of
Wis.
Stat.
§ 70.32(1).
We
conclude
that
the
assessment
upheld by the Board was made according to law and was supported
by a reasonable view of the evidence, and affirm the court of
appeals.
By
the
Court.—The
decision
affirmed.
16
of
the
court
of
appeals
is
No.
1
2009AP191
]]>
