Madison Aerie No. 623, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. City of Madison

• Decision Date: 09 April 1957
• Citation: 275 Wis. 472,82 N.W.2d 207
• Parties: MADISON AERIE NO. 623 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, Inc., Appellant, v. CITY OF MADISON, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 207

82 N.W.2d 207

275 Wis. 472

MADISON AERIE NO. 623 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, Inc., Appellant, v. CITY OF MADISON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 9, 1957.

McAndrews & Melli, William K. Chipman, Madison, for appellant.

Harold E. Hanson, City Atty., Henry B. Buslee, Asst. City Atty., Madison, for respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

The appellant submits that both the assessor and the board of review failed to make an apportionment between taxable and exempt values in the manner prescribed by sec. 70.11(8), Stats., resulting in a gross over-assessment.

'* * * The courts do not have jurisdiction to disturb the findings of a Board of Review except where the Board acts in bad faith or exceeds its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Pierce v. Jodon, 1924, 182 Wis. 645, 197 N.W. 189. In the absence of bad faith, if the evidence presented to the Board of Review is sufficient to furnish a substantial basis for the valuation found by the Board, its decision will not be disturbed. Wisconsin Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 1937, 225 Wis. 393, 274 N.W. 288.' State ex rel. Enterprise Realty Co. v. Swiderski, 1955, 269 Wis. 642, 70 N.W.2d 34, 35.

Clear errors of law, however, may be corrected by the courts upon certiorari. Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Schubel, 1872, 29 Wis. 444, 451. The appellant contends that the board's alleged violation of sec. 70.11(8), Stats., in apportioning the non-exempt use brings relief within the scope of certiorari.

The record shows that in their clubhouse the Eagles operate a dining room, bar, bowling alley and numerous meeting rooms and halls. These facilities are served by the heating and ventilating systems and kitchen which occupy other portions of the building. The dining room is open to and used by the public from 11:30 a. m. to 2:00 p. m. daily and to members and their guests, only, from 5:00 p. m. to midnight on week days and 12:30 a. m. on weekends. During the public hours many of the patrons are Eagles. The bowling alley is open to and used by the public on Saturday and Sunday. On Monday it is used at certain hours by the Gisholt League and the Industrial League, on Tuesday by the Workmens' League and the Sportsmen's League, on Wednesday afternoon by the Industrial League. Only Eagles and their guests use the alleys on other days. Many members of the various league teams are Eagles and on Saturdays and Sundays many of the bowlers are Eagles. Compensation is paid for the use of the alleys by the bowlers whether Eagles or not. The bar is used by non-members during the hours when they may patronize the other departments of the clubhouse. The meeting halls and other rooms are used primarily by Eagles, their families and guests, but there is a fairly constant and regular rental of these spaces to outsiders for dances and receptions. Appellant supplied the board of review with figures tending to show the proportion of members and their guests, compared to non-members, who used the clubhouse at the times it, or part of it, were open to non-members, and contends that the statute demands that the non-exempt use be determined by this comparison. For example, if during the time the dining room is open to the public one-half the patrons are Eagles the taxable value of the dining room for that time is an undivided one-half of the actual value, the other undivided one-half being exempt because the customers served are Eagles. The city, on the other hand, submits that during the hours when the public is served the whole dining area, with its kitchens, heating and ventilation is a public, not a fraternal facility, and no proportion of its value is exempt, regardless of the number of Eagles who may be dining there compared to the diners who are not Eagles.

Statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed and all doubts are resolved in favor of its taxability. To be entitled to tax exemption the taxpayer must bring himself within the exact terms of the exemption statute. These...