Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is the owner of property in D that consists of 14.525 acres on which sits a 134,574-square-foot Lowe's Home Improvement store. Construction on the building was completed in 2005, and P has occupied the building since that time. In 2013, D conducted a revaluation of the property and arrived at an assessed value of $8,922,300. No changes were made to this value for purposes of the 2016 and 2017 assessments. P challenged the assessments for 2016 and 2017 by filing this action, asserting that the assessments of its property for the 2016 and 2017 tax years were excessive and seeking to recover the excess amount it believed it had paid. The circuit court held a three-day bench trial on the matter. D's Assessor testified, as did D's expert appraiser Scott Chapko. P offered testimony from two experts, Michael MaRous and Brett Harrington. D's Assessor testified that the prior assessment of the property, completed in 2013, was done using the cost approach, that replacement costs were based on 'Marshall and Swift cost data, and that market adjustments were applied for depreciation and additional obsolescence. He also compared the assessments to recent revaluations in other communities. P's expert, MaRous, testified that the property had a fair market value of $4.6 million. MaRous used the sales comparison approach. In doing so, he compared the P's property to six other recently sold properties that he had determined to be 'comparable' to P's property. Three of the six comparable sites used were former American TV locations. Two of these sites were sold to Steinhafel's furniture, and one was sold and converted into a go-kart racing track, bar, and restaurant. All three were in receivership. MaRous's comparable sale number two was a former K-Mart store that had been vacant and marketed for '2 to 3 years' prior to being sold. Comparable sale number four was a former P store in Brown Deer. The property had been built in 2006 and vacated by P just five years later. It sat vacant for two years before being purchased by Walmart in 2013. MaRous testified that the 'exposure time,' or the length of time it takes a property to sell on the open market, for properties similar to the subject property in the same geographical area, is two to three years. Comparable sale number five was a vacant former Target store. This property was 'vacant before the purchase for about four years.' It was ultimately purchased by a developer who 'broke it up into two [lots] . . . because that's where the demand was.' D countered P's expert with its own expert, Scott Chapko. Chapko valued the property at $9.2 million, slightly higher than the assessed value. He arrived at this valuation using the sales comparison approach, although Chapko used different properties as comparables. Chapko testified that he did not think it was appropriate to use 'dark' stores or 'distressed' properties to compare. All of Chapko's submitted comparable sales were occupied at the time of sale and had market-rate leases in place. None was sold under 'duress,' such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure. Chapko testified that the exposure time for a property like the subject property is in the 'overall range of 2 to 18 months.' The circuit court ruled for D. The court discounted MaRous's claimed comparables two and five in that they were both vacant beyond the 2-3 year window that Mr. MaRous identified as the normal exposure time for the Delavan area. That they were considered comparable sales at all is in apparent direct conflict with the principles outlined in the Manual, stating not to use dark properties in performing an appraisal unless the subject property is also dark. In addition, the court found that half of the comparable sales used by Mr. MaRous were in receivership. The court ruled that P had not provided significant contrary evidence that the D's valuation was excessive. P appealed, and it was affirmed. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.