Summary
upholding assessment of commercial property nearly twice the recent sale price where the evidence revealed that the seller was "endeavoring to dispose of multiple additional properties during the same period
Summary of this case from Great Bay Hydro v. Town of DerbyOpinion
January 8, 1958 —
February 4, 1958.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Barron county: CARL H. DALEY, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by George Strang, city attorney.
For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by F. E. Van Sickle of Barron.
Thomas P. Hein obtained a writ of certiorari, issued August 10, 1956, to the clerk of the board of review of the city of Barron, commanding the return of the record pertinent to assessment of Hein's property.
The return disclosed facts as follows: Mr. Hein owns a bowling-alley building in the city of Barron which the city assessor valued at $28,580 as of May 1, 1956. Hein purchased the building January 1, 1956, from Barron Recreation Corporation for $15,000. The owner had first offered it to Hein about September 15, 1955, and had offered it to another individual for $18,000. The building had been for sale for at least a year before Hein purchased it. The insurance on the building is about $32,000. It has been rented for $250 per month for several years, both before and after the sale. Mr. Hein testified that he did not know of any reason why the Barron Recreation Corporation was forced to sell the building. He testified he would not sell it at the time of the hearing (July 1, 1956) for what he paid for it and in answer to the question, "What do you think you should have?" he answered, "$25,000." When Mr. Hein purchased the building he obtained two bank loans totaling $15,000 — $2,000 on his own note with four $500 bonds as collateral and $13,000 secured by a mortgage on the building. He testified that he owns other property and that his note for $13,000 is perfectly good.
The assessor testified that he had been city assessor for four years and had prior experience in the field of appraisal for financial institutions and government agencies; that the city of Barron had been reassessed in 1953 under the supervision of the department of taxation; that the assessor was one of the members of the assessment board; that all factors going into a good sound investment had been considered and that the same factors were used in later assessments including the 1956 assessment. The ratio of the 1955 assessed valuation of the city of Barron to the 1955 equalized valuation was 93.27 per cent; the ratio for residential property, 98.3 per cent, for mercantile property, 81 per cent, for industrial, 90 per cent, and for agricultural, 97 per cent. He testified that there have been only about four sales in the mercantile district of the city during the last four or five years; that the 1953 assessment on the Hein property had been $30,485. He described the building, its cubical content, rental, and age. He stated that in his opinion the fair market value and the full value which could have been obtained for this property at private sale on May 1, 1956, were in excess of $28,580, and that in his opinion the price at which it would have been sold by an informed willing seller not obliged to sell and purchased by an informed willing buyer not obliged to buy was in excess of $28,580. It appears from the assessor's testimony that people by the name of Miner owned the corporation which sold the property to Hein and that they had been endeavoring to dispose of property at the same time in Barron, Rice Lake, Chetek, Chippewa Falls, Ladysmith, and the town of Stanley. In the assessor's opinion, it would take longer than a year to dispose of that much property to advantage. Except for the assessor's testimony, the record contains no information concerning the circumstances of the seller nor its motives for the sale.
After the hearing the board of review voted to confirm the assessment. The objection of Mr. Hein both before the board of review and the circuit court was that the assessment was not based upon the value which was determined by the private sale.
The circuit court decided that the sale on January 1, 1956, established the fair market value and that because the assessor had disregarded the sale, the assessment was illegal and void. Judgment was entered on June 26, 1957, reversing and setting aside the action of the board of review. The city of Barron has appealed.
The board of review confirmed the assessment of $28,850. The assessment was presumptively correct and the assessor testified in explanation and support of it. The taxpayer asserts that the full value and fair market value are to be determined by the $15,000 price paid at a contemporaneous sale.
"Where the clear market value is not established by a sale or sales the assessor or the board of review should consider all the facts collectively which have a bearing upon such market value, in order to determine it. But such facts only indicate what the fair market value is and there is no occasion to resort to them, and it is wrong to do so, when the market value is established by a fair sale of the property in question or like property." State ex rel. Enterprise Realty Co. v. Swiderski (1955), 269 Wis. 642, 645, 70 N.W.2d 34.
"There was a contemporaneous sale of the property in question. That being so, the taxpayer still has the burden of showing that the sale was made under normal conditions so as to lead to the conclusion that the price paid was that which could ordinarily be obtained for the property. If those conditions are met there is no occasion to consider other factors and it is wrong to do so." State ex rel. Evansville Mercantile Asso. v. Evansville (1957), 1 Wis.2d 40, 43, 82 N.W.2d 899.
In State ex rel. Hennessey v. Milwaukee (1942), 241 Wis. 548, 6 N.W.2d 718, where an assessment based on formula and opinion was set aside, there was not only a recent sale of the property under consideration but evidence of sales and offers of similar property in the vicinity and of the condition of the parties to the sales and offers.
"Does the fact that this property was sold immediately after the assessment for a price materially less than the assessor's valuation so clearly establish the full value which would ordinarily be obtained at private sale as to demonstrate the incorrectness or inaccuracy of the assessor's judgment? We think not, unless such evidence is accompanied by a showing that the sale was made under such normal and usual circumstances as to lead to the conclusion that the price paid was that which ordinarily could be obtained at private sale. The relations and circumstances of the parties, as well as the purpose of the sale, have an important bearing upon this question. Other circumstances not here named may demonstrate that the sale was a normal and usual one, and give such probative force to the price paid as to compel the conclusion that the assessor's valuation was incorrect. It seems to us, however, that the burden of producing this evidence is upon the person seeking to attack the assessment, and that the presumption survives until a showing of this sort has been made. In this case, we consider that the trial court correctly decided that the evidence offered was too meager to compel the conclusion that the board of review committed jurisdictional error in allowing the assessment to stand." State ex rel. Collins v. Brown (1937), 225 Wis. 593, 595, 275 N.W. 455.
As indicated in the statement of facts the taxpayer in the instant case offered no proof of the financial condition of the seller nor its motivation for the sale. The assessor testified that the people who evidently owned the selling corporation were endeavoring to dispose of a number of properties during the same period. The bank's willingness to lend 87 per cent of the purchase price on the security of a mortgage on the property, the taxpayer's testimony six months after the purchase and two months after the assessment date that he should get $25,000 for the property, and the fact that the property was insured for $32,000 and rented for $250 per month, all suggest that the property was a bargain at $15,000. The taxpayer's testimony that he knew of no reason why the former owner was forced to sell and that the property had been for sale for at least a year was not sufficient to compel the board of review to conclude that the full value of the property was established by the sale. We therefore cannot agree with the circuit court that the board of review acted outside its jurisdiction in confirming the assessment.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, cause remanded with directions to enter judgment dismissing the writ with costs.