Walmart Inc. v. Winona Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | A19-1878,A19-1877 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Walmart Inc., Appellant, v. Winona County, Respondent, Martin County, Respondent. |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Winona County District Court
Edward F. Fox, Jeffrey R. Peters, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Robert A. Hill, Robert Hill Law, Ltd., Wayzata, Minnesota (for appellant)
Marc J. Manderscheid, Andrew M. Carlson, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents Winona County and Martin County); and
Karin Sonneman, Winona County Attorney, Paul Ellison, Assistant County Attorney, Winona, Minnesota (for respondent Winona County); and
Terry W. Viesselman, Martin County Attorney, Fairmont, Minnesota (for respondent Martin County) Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae USA Property Tax Associates and Alliance Property Consultants, Inc.)
Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Jason J. Stover, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota; and
Peter Orput, Washington County Attorney, James C. Zuleger, Assistant County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Suzanne W. Schrader, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Sara Bruggeman, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus Minnesota County Attorneys Association)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bratvold Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In these consolidated appeals, appellant Walmart Inc. (Walmart) challenges decisions from Winona County District Court and Martin County District Court (collectively, the district courts) dismissing Walmart's complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Walmart describes its complaints as alleging that its "Big-Box stores in each of those [c]ounties had been intentionally overvalued and unequally assessed to extract excessive real estate taxes" in violation of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. On appeal, Walmart argues that the district court decisions must be reversed because they erroneously determined that Minn. Stat. §§ 278.01-.14 (2018) (chapter 278) is "the exclusive remedy"for property-tax-assessment claims, which Walmart insists overstates precedent. Walmart maintains that its complaints allege constitutional violations that cannot be "preempt[ed]" by chapter 278, that its claims are not barred by the one-year limitations period in chapter 278, and that the district courts misapplied the rule 12 standard. Walmart also contends its complaints adequately plead a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 (2012). Respondents Winona County and Martin County (collectively, the counties) disagree and ask us to affirm.
We determine that Walmart's claims, as pleaded in the complaints, are covered by chapter 278 and therefore time-barred by the statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c). While the district courts' memoranda may have overstated precedent about the exclusivity of chapter 278, and an independent constitutional violation may be cognizable, we need not decide that issue because Walmart's complaints fail to state a claim for constitutional violations. Because we also conclude that Walmart's complaints fail to state a claim under sections 1983 and 1988, we affirm.
Walmart seeks relief from property-tax assessments for two Walmart Supercenters, one in Fairmont (Martin County) and the other in Winona (Winona County). In separate actions not involved in this appeal, Walmart in April 2019 timely filed "Chapter 278" petitions challenging the 2018 assessments on its properties in both counties. In the complaints at issue in this appeal, filed in May 2019, Walmart challenged the assessments on its properties in both counties from January 2, 2013, through January 2, 2018, anddemanded a jury trial. Both complaints assert the same two claims: first, a claim for unequal assessments (count one); and, second, a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 (count two).1
The complaints have almost identical factual allegations. Both complaints allege that the county assessors "placed a market value" on Walmart's real property "in an amount which unconstitutionally violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Uniformity Clause of the Minnesota Constitution by imposing a disproportionate and discriminatory tax burden" as compared to similarly-situated (a) state taxpayers; (b) county taxpayers; (c) "actual sale prices paid and tax assessments made for similar real property" in the county; (d) "actual sale prices paid and tax assessments for similar real property" in the state; and (e) "actual sale prices paid for similar real property" in the United States "for Big Box stores."
Both complaints include an "Unequal Assessment and Lack of Uniformity Chart" for each property that, according to the allegations, "demonstrates the gross disparity between [the counties'] 2013 through 2018 assessments of [Walmart's] Real Property and the actual market sales and assessments of similar real property" in each county "and throughout Minnesota and elsewhere."
Both complaints quote Minn. Stat. § 273.12 (2018), and allege that real property assessments in every county "are the product of the statutory duty" of the county assessorto "give due weight to lands which are comparable . . . to the end that all lands similarly located and improved will be assessed upon a uniform basis and without discrimination." Both complaints also allege that Minnesota law requires all real property be assessed based on its "market value," citing Minn. Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1 (2018), and that caselaw provides that county assessors must rely "on market sales of comparable real property when performing" their duties.
Both complaints then allege that "[d]espite a clear statutory duty and controlling [caselaw]," the counties "willfully, intentionally, and unlawfully refused to consider and give due weight," in the case of Martin County, "to a sale of the Fairmont Kmart store in 2015 comparable in character, quality, and location," and, in the case of Winona County, to "multiple sales and valuations of similarly situated, comparable properties." Both complaints allege that the county assessors "fail[ed] to abide by the statutory duty and statutory requirement" to "rely on sales of comparable real property" in administering 2013-2018 tax assessments of Walmart's real properties, and this "constitutes an intentional and willful failure and refusal by [the counties] to apply and employ the legally mandated standard" to assess Walmart's real properties.
As a result, both complaints allege that the counties assessed Walmart's real properties during the 2013 through 2018 period "at an estimated market value" in excess of the average sales price "paid or assessment for" big-box stores in Minnesota. In the case of Martin County, Walmart alleges the assessment was "between 250% to 300% more" than the average sales price of Minnesota big-box stores. The Martin County complaint also alleges that the county's "intentional and willful failure to fulfill its statutory duty torely on sales comparisons between like real properties in order to assess them 'upon a uniform basis' for property taxes" caused the county to impose a tax burden on Walmart that is "2.5 to 22 times the sums assessed" against "the neighboring Kmart Big Box store." In the case of Winona County, Walmart similarly alleges the counties "intentional and willful failure to perform" its duties caused the county to impose a tax burden "more than twice" the average sales price or assessment of Minnesota big-box stores.
Both complaints also allege that the counties have been notified of "the grossly disproportionate assessments" and Walmart has "requested and demanded" that the counties repay "all amounts overpaid," but the counties have "failed and refused to base [Walmart's] assessment on the applicable statutory requirements," so that Walmart has "suffered damages in excess of $50,000, the precise amount of which shall be established at jury trial of this matter."
In count one, Walmart alleges that the valuations and assessments of its properties by both county assessors from 2013 through 2018 "intentionally and systematically discriminated against" Walmart's real properties "as compared to similarly situated properties of the same class in the same taxing district" in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause and the state Uniformity Clause. In count two, Walmart claims it will "incur costs and damages recoverable" against the counties under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 "to vindicate [Walmart's] constitutional rights."
For remedies, both complaints request declarations that Walmart's properties have been "subjected to unequal and discriminatory assessments" that violate the state and federal constitutions and Minnesota chapter 273. Walmart also requests a determination of"the real or actual market value" of its real properties from January 2, 2013, through January 2, 2018; a reduction in the "market value" of its real properties "for the affected assessment years"; and a direction to the counties to "correct the tax lists and assessment rolls," "issue corrected tax statements," and "refund[] . . . tax overpayments . . . with interest, as required by law." Finally, the complaints request money judgments for Walmart's overpayment of taxes for 2013-2018, as well as for costs and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.
The counties moved to dismiss Walmart's complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). After a hearing, the district courts took the motions under advisement and later granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial