Wagner v. Bd. of Review of City of Glenwood

• Decision Date: 16 June 1942
• Docket Number: No. 45978.,45978.
• Citation: 232 Iowa 58,4 N.W.2d 405
• Parties: WAGNER v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF GLENWOOD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

232 Iowa 58

4 N.W.2d 405

WAGNER

v.BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF GLENWOOD.

No. 45978.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 16, 1942.

Appeal from District Court, Mills County; Charles Roe, Judge.

This is an appeal under the provisions of Code, section 7133, from the action of the board of review of the city of Glenwood in Mills County. The trial court sustained the valuation fixed by the board of review on the lot in question but refused to sustain that part of the assessment which included the building then in the process of construction. The board of review appeals.

Reversed.

Cook & Cook, of Glenwood, for appellant.

Genung & Genung, of Glenwood, for appellee.

SAGER, Justice.

In January, 1941, the assessor of Glenwood assessed a certain lot at $1,500 and a building under construction at $7,500. The building was then 55 per cent completed. This was reduced by the board of review to $1,200 on the lot and $6,800 on the building. Appellee's predecessor in interest appealed on the grounds that the assessment was too high, disproportionate and not in equality with like property in the city. No evidence was offered except that of the architect who had charge of the construction. He set the figure of 55 per cent completion above mentioned. The other facts are covered by a stipulation. At the close of appellee's case, appellant moved as follows: “Comes now the defendant, and moves the Court to dismiss the appeal for the reason that there is no sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption carried by the assessment by the assessor and board of review; and there is no evidence of value upon which the court could fix any value for this property.”

The question before us was clearly brought out in an exchange between court and counsel at the time of the trial. We quote a part of it:

“The Court: I understand it this way, gentlemen, it is your theory in this matter that it was taxable only as an unimproved lot, without a finished building thereon?

“Mr. Genung: That is my contention.

“The Court: Whatsoever was on that on January 1st, is not taxable.

“Mr. Genung: No, an unfinished building is not taxable, then the lot is taxable.

“The Court: Then the value of the assessment on the lot would have to stand?

“Mr. Clyde Genung: That is all. * * *

“Mr. Carl Cook: There is no question about the lot.

“Mr. Genung: There is no question about the lot at all.

“The Court: Any question about the value of the building in the evidence.

“Mr. Genung: If your honor finds it is taxable in that condition,-

“The Court: You are stuck with the assessment?

“Mr. Genung: Absolutely.”

The trial court ruled that the unfinished building was not taxable. Therein we think the court erred. We have not had this question before us in any other case. Its solution depends upon the wording and effect of the statutes to which reference will be made. We approach the problem under this well established rule: “Taxation is the rule, exemption from taxation the exception.” Security Sav. Bank v. Connell, 198 Iowa 564, 200 N.W. 8, 9, 36 A.L.R. 486;Samuelson v. Horn, 221 Iowa 208, 265 N.W. 168.

Section 6959, 1939 Code, provides in part: “Real estate shall be listed and valued in 1933 and every four years thereafter, and in each year in which real estate is not regularly assessed, the assessor shall list and assess any real property not included in the previous assessment, and also any buildings erected since the previous assessment * * *.”

The assessment under investigation was made in 1941, the year in...