State ex rel. Boostrom v. Board of Review of Town of Linn, Walworth County

• Decision Date: 01 April 1969
• Docket Number: No. 176,176
• Citation: 166 N.W.2d 184,42 Wis.2d 149
• Parties: STATE ex rel. Hazel BOOSTROM er al., Respondents, v. The BOARD OF REVIEW OF the TOWN OF LINN, WALWORTH COUNTY, Wis., a municipal corp., Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 184

166 N.W.2d 184

42 Wis.2d 149

STATE ex rel. Hazel BOOSTROM er al., Respondents, v. The BOARD OF REVIEW OF the TOWN OF LINN, WALWORTH COUNTY Wis., a municipal corp., Appellant.

No. 176.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 1, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1969.

Lehman & Seymour, Elkhorn, for appellant.

Godfrey, Godfrey & Neshek, Elkhorn, for Boostrom.

Hugh L. Burdick, Lake Geneva, for Lake Geneva Country Club.

BEILFUSS, Justice.

The issues presented are:

1. Was there sufficient evidence offered by the relators to show the Boostrom property was not assessed at its actual market value?

2. Should the land owned and used as a golf course be assessed as agricultural land instead of residential?

3. Were the residential and agricultural lands assessed upon a non-uniform statutory basis so as to impose an unequal burden of taxation?

Basic to the issues are the constitutional provision that '(t)he rule of taxation shall be uniform ³ * * *,' and the statutory direction as how real estate is to be valued. Sec. 70.32(1), Stats., provides:

'Real estate, how valued. (1) Real property shall be valued by the assessor 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, as to each piece, its advantage or disadvantage of location, quality of soil, quantity of standing timber, water privileges, mines, minerals, quarries, or other valuable deposits known to be available therein, and their value; * * *.' ⁴

The standards of review in the trial court and in this court are as follows:

'The principles of law are well settled governing the jurisdiction of courts in reviewing the findings of boards of review on certiorari. The duties of boards of review are quasi-judicial and courts have no jurisdiction to disturb their findings or determinations except where they act in bad faith or exceed their jurisdiction. Brown v. Oneida County, 103 Wis. 149, 79 N.W. 216. Judicial review of the action of boards of review on certiorari extends only to jurisdictional errors. State ex rel. Miller v. Thompson, 151 Wis. 184, 138 N.W. 628; State ex rel. M. A. Hanna D. Co. v. Willcuts, 143 Wis. 449, 128 N.W. 97. If a board of review does not act arbitrarily or dishonestly and the evidence presented before it is sufficient to furnish any substantial basis for the valuation found by the board, its decision will not be disturbed. State ex rel. Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Williams, 160 Wis. 648, 152 N.W. 450. The review here extends only to correction of jurisdictional errors and does not include mere errors of judgment as to the preponderance of the evidence. State ex rel. Edward Hines L. Co. v. Fisher, 129 Wis. 57, 108 N.W. 206. Upon certiorari to a nonjudicial body such as a board of review, the court will review the evidence only so far as to ascertain if there is reasonable ground for belief that the decision is the result of honest judgment, in which case it will not be disturbed. State ex rel. N. Foster L. Co. v. Williams, 123 Wis. 61, 100 N.W. 1048; State ex rel. Vilas v. Wharton, 117 Wis. 558, 94 N.W. 359. This court will review the proceedings to ascertain whether such body has kept within its jurisdiction and whether such board acted upon competent evidence sufficient to give it jurisdiction. State ex rel. Wood Co. v. Dodge County, 56 Wis. 79, 13 N.W. 680. The presumptions are all in favor of the rightful action of such board. The assessor's valuation of property is prima facie correct and is binding upon the board of review in the absence of evidence showing it to be incorrect. State ex rel. Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Williams, 160 Wis. 648, 152 N.W. 450.' State ex rel. Pierce v. Jodon (1924), 182 Wis. 645, 647, 648, 197 N.W. 189, 190.

In addition, failure to make the assessment on the statutory basis is an error of law and correctable by the courts on certiorari. State ex rel. Garton Toy Co. v. Town of Mosel (1966), 32 Wis.2d 253, 145 N.W.2d 129. If the trial court finds upon the undisputed evidence before the board that the assessment has not been fixed upon the statutory basis, the assessment should be set aside. State ex rel. Garton Toy Co., supra; Central Cheese Co. v. City of Marshfield (1961), 13 Wis.2d 524, 109 N.W.2d 75.

In the trial court at least, Hazel Boostrom contended that the 1964 assessment of her real estate, including the improvements, was in excess of its fair market value.

The trial court in finding that the assessment was illegal as to the Boostrom property relied on two exhibits offered by respondent Boostrom, which indicate the value of the property was $37,000. Based on the 50 percent assessment policy, the property would be expected to be assessed at $18,500. Yet, the property, land and improvements were assessed at $34,400, which would indicate a value of $68,800.

Appellant states that the evidence as to the Boostrom property, $37,000, is totally misleading because the property referred to in the exhibits is not the Boostrom property but that of Mildren Nelson, and is located on the other side of the lake from Boostrom's.

The exhibits, objectors' Nos. 7 and 8, make no reference to Hazel Boostrom. In fact, the appraisal, Exhibit No. 7, refers to property on the north side of lake Geneva; whereas the Boostrom property is located on the south side of the lake.

Respondent Boostrom made no attempt to challenge appellant's contention on appeal. It appears that the trial court relied on exhibits which were immaterial to the question of the value of the Boostrom property. There is, therefore, no evidence to rebut the value placed on the property by the assessor, Mr. Palmer.

The country club was assessed as residental property, and it is zoned Residential 'A.' The respondent country club contends that the property should have been classified as farm land even though it is being used as a golf course and country club. Respondents' expert witness testified that as farm land the property would sell at between $275 to $300 per acre.

Respondents rely on State ex rel. Oshkosh Country Club v. Petrick (1920), 172 Wis. 82, 178 N.W. 251. The court in that case, however, did not hold that country clubs are to be classified as farm land, but found that the only purpose for which the land in question could be sold was as farm land because there was no market for golf courses in Oshkosh at the time and place and all the adjoining land was agricultural. There is no evidence here that the respondents' property could be sold only as farm land. On the contrary, the land adjacent to the golf course on both sides had been subdivided for residential use.

There being no other evidence as to the value of the property, the trial court correctly concluded that the respondent, Lake Geneva Country Club, had failed to meet its burden of proof.

It is the contention of both respondents that the residential real estate as a class was assessed at an unequal and higher rate than agricultural property and that it was not assessed upon a statutory standard.

Pursuant to the constitutional mandate ⁵ this court has consistently held that property taxes must be uniform.

In Marsh et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Clark County (1877), 42 Wis. 502, 509, Chief Justice Ryan, speaking for the court, stated:

'Here, the exercise of the taxing power must be upon a uniform rule; and it is only upon an equal assessment, as the foundation of uniform apportionment, that the taxing power can be put in operation. The statutes of the states generally provide for assessment, as 'an official estimate of the sums which are to constitute the basis of an apportionment of a tax between the individual subjects of taxation;' and, when they so provide, the assessment becomes an essential part of the process in the collection of taxes. Cooley on Tax., ch. XII. But, under our constitution, the assessment is not only an...