Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 96-0171
| Decision Date | 23 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-0171,96-0171 |
| Citation | 572 N.W.2d 855,215 Wis.2d 370 |
| Parties | Richard L. HERMANN, Phillip Mattison, James M. Schoemperlen, Juan C. Beltran, Cary Berkowitz, Robert Berman, Clifford Blackwell, Joanne T. Bontkowski, Suzanne Brandner, George M. Briody, Barton F. Cameron, Dan U. Cameron, Douglas H. Cameron, Marion K. Cameron, Palmer W. Cameron, James G. Campbell, Edmund J. Cepulis, Mildred E. Chupich, George Cibon, Donald Clark, Ted Compall, Robert E. Cowhey, Dan Cox, Robert J. Darnall, Robert W. Davies, David J. Doerge, Stuart Ellison, Joseph Fehsenfeld, Theodore W. Filson, Ralph C. Glans, David Glickman, Gregory K. Goethal, Carlos A. Gonzalez, Howard C. Grant, Mike Grover, Steve R. Hall, Karen A. Hamm, John M. Hanson, Robert H. Harper, Erwin R. Herz, Donald C. Holst, Charles Ifergan, Allan Inbinder, Melvin F. Jager, Robert Kelman, Jim King, Raymond W. Kline, Jr., John T. Lauer, Terrence J. Lauer, Rhonda L. Levin, Mary Ellen Loofbourrow, Gerald R. Lynch, Richard L. Macgregor, Ethel A. Marett, Don W. Matheny, D. Chet Mckee, John J. Mckenna, John Mengel, Marion J. Mitchell, Vincent Micuch, William Mueller, William G. Myers, Larry Nendze, David A. Novak, Richard A. Nunemaker, Lucille M. Papendorf, Jon H. Rasmussen, Harold Rider, M.B. Rude, Trudy Schwartz, David Semmel, Michael J. Sherman, William G. Shold, Myron Shure, James P. Soper, III, Barry M. Stagl, Donald Stephens, Allan J. Sternstein, Steven M. Stone, John F. Stoner, Donald J. Svachula, Steven Szczepanski, Magdalena O. Valle, William L. Weiss, Frances Whiteford, Helen M. Wydra, Susie Zeiser, Paul Balter and Reid S. Barker Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. TOWN OF DELAVAN, and Town of Delavan Board of Review, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there briefs by Robert L. Gordon, Alan Marcuvitz and Weiss, Berzowski, Brady & Donahue, Milwaukee and oral argument by Robert L. Gordon.
For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by Steven R. Wassel and Steven C. Harvey, Wassel Law Offices, Delavan and oral argument by Steven R. Wassel.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Richard J. Stadelman, Shawano and Claire Silverman, Madison for the Wisconsin Towns Association and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities.
There is one issue presented for review: must a complaint alleging a violation of the Uniformity Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the complaint challenges the tax assessment valuation of certain real property, but fails to allege plaintiffs' prior compliance with the property tax appeal procedures provided in Wis. Stat. § 70.47 (1995-96). 1
¶2 This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals, Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 208 Wis.2d 217, 560 N.W.2d 280 (Ct.App.1996), affirming a decision of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court of appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' action could not be maintained without alleging prior compliance with the statutory scheme for challenging and reviewing a property tax assessment. We agree with the court of appeals, and we affirm its decision.
¶3 The relevant facts of the current dispute, as relayed by the court of appeals, are simple and undisputed. Eighty-nine residential property owners (hereinafter the taxpayers) from the Town of Delavan (hereinafter the Town) filed a complaint under Wis. Stat. § 893.80 alleging that the Town's method of property tax assessment for the year 1994 was unfair and non-uniform as between lakefront and inland properties in violation of the Uniformity Clause of Wis. Const. art. VIII, § 1. 2 The complaint does not aver a prior objection before the Town of Delavan Board of Review (hereinafter the board), nor does it raise an appeal from the board's decision. 3 The Walworth County Circuit Court Judge, John R. Race, dismissed the taxpayers' action under Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6 for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The circuit court concluded that the taxpayers' action must be dismissed since they had failed to exhaust the exclusive statutory remedies addressing the complaint's overassessment claims. The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court and affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayers' complaint. We accepted the taxpayers' petition for review.
¶4 Whether a complaint properly pleads a cause of action is a question of law which we decide without deference to the decisions of the lower courts. See Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis.2d 506, 512, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987); Heinritz v. Lawrence Univ., 194 Wis.2d 606, 610, 535 N.W.2d 81 (Ct.App.1995). The purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Evans v. Cameron, 121 Wis.2d 421, 426, 360 N.W.2d 25 (1985). In determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the facts pled are taken as admitted. See id. Since pleadings are to be liberally construed, dismissal of a claim is improper if there are any conditions under which the plaintiffs could recover. See Morgan v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 87 Wis.2d 723, 733, 275 N.W.2d 660 (1979).
¶5 The taxpayers' current claim, although based on a uniformity clause challenge, is an action that inherently questions the valuation of certain property assessed for real property taxation. In their complaint, the taxpayers do not challenge the Town's authority to assess the value of, and levy taxes upon, the real property in question. The taxpayers do not contend that they did not own the property in question or that the taxes were levied upon the wrong taxpayers. Nor do the taxpayers claim that the board of review failed to act in accordance with its procedural requirements. The gravamen of the taxpayers' claim is that their lakefront properties were significantly overvalued and overassessed in relation to inland properties for the 1994 tax year. This overassessment, the taxpayers argue, is a result of the town assessor's use of arbitrary and inconsistent formulas when assessing the value of their property. A claim of overassessment, regardless of the basis upon which it is grounded, necessarily questions the valuation of real property assessed for taxation.
¶6 Chapter 70 of the Wisconsin Statutes establishes a comprehensive procedure by which property owners may challenge the valuation or the amount of property assessed for taxation. Persons objecting to either the valuation or the amount of property assessed by the taxing district must first file such objection with the clerk of the board of review prior to adjournment of public hearings by the board. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(a). Upon receiving such objection, the board must establish a time for hearing that objection and must give notice of the hearing to the objecting party. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(bb). At the hearing, the board must hear upon oath all persons who appear before it in relation to the assessment, and it may compel the attendance of, and examine, any witnesses it believes have knowledge of the property in question. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(8)(a), (c), (d). If from the evidence gathered at the hearing, the board determines that the assessor's valuation is incorrect, the board is required to correct the assessment. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(9)(a). If the board has reason to believe that property for which no objection has been raised is incorrectly assessed, the board must also review the assessment for such property and correct any error it discovers. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(10).
¶7 The statutory scheme of chs. 70 and 74 also provides a detailed method for taxpayers to appeal a decision of the board of review. A property owner who files an objection with the board of review under Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7) and who disagrees with the board's determination has three options for appeal. The property owner may appeal the determination of the board by an action for certiorari. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13). 4 In addition, the property owner may file a written complaint with the department of revenue requesting that the department revalue the property and adjust the assessment thereof. See Wis. Stat. § 70.85. 5 In the alternative, the property owner may file a claim against the taxation district for an excessive assessment to recover any amount of property tax imposed as a result of the excessive assessment. See Wis. Stat. § 74.37(2)(a). 6
¶8 Each of the three methods of appealing a board of review's decision requires the objecting property owner to file his or her claim within a specific time limit. If the property owner elects to pursue a certiorari action under Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13), he or she must file that action within 90 days after the taxpayer receives notice of the board's decision. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13). If the property owner chooses to appeal to the department of revenue under Wis. Stat. § 70.85, he or she must file a written complaint with the department within 20 days of receiving the board's decision or within 30 days of the date specified in the affidavit giving notice of the decision if there is no return receipt. See Wis. Stat. § 70.85(2). Finally, the property owner who decides to file a claim for excessive assessment under Wis. Stat. § 74.37(2)(a) must do so by January 31 of the year in which the tax is payable. See Wis. Stat. § 74.37(2)(b)5. 7
¶9 Each method of appeal also requires that the objecting property owner satisfy certain conditions precedent. See Wis. Stat. §§ 70.47(13); 70.85(1)-(4); 74.37(4). A prerequisite for all three forms of appeal, however, is filing an objection before the board of review pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7). See Wis. Stat. §§ 70.47(13); 8 70.85(2); 9 74.37(4)(a). 10
[215 Wis.2d 382] p 10 Upon review, we conclude that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawyer v. Midelfort
... ... See Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis.2d 370, 378, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998). We read the Estate's claim as a ... ...
-
Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire
... ... , 31. Whether a complaint adequately pleads a cause of action is a question of law. Hermann v. Town of Delavan , 215 Wis.2d 370, 378, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998). 4 376 Wis.2d 495 899 N.W.2d 714 ... ...
-
Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, Case No.: 2015AP1858
... ... Town of Cottage Grove , 2008 WI 51, 44 n.9, 309 Wis. 2d 365, 749 N.W.2d 211 (citing Black's Law ... See Hermann v. Town of Delavan , 215 Wis. 2d 370, 378, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998). 2. Application 123 Plaintiffs' ... ...
-
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
... ... Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370, 378, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998) (citing Evans v. Cameron, 121 ... ...