Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
805 N.W.2d 582
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and Lamar Central Outdoor, Inc. appeal a circuit court dismissal of their declaratory-judgment complaints challenging Milwaukee billboard assessments.
- The circuit court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust required administrative remedies under Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(a) and (16)(a).
- Hermann v. Town of Delavan governs whether exhaustion is required when challenges to property tax assessments are raised.
- Billboard value comprises three components: the structure, the land, and the permit; permits are taxed as real property and structures as personal property.
- Clear Channel and Lamar argue the City improperly taxed billboards as realty, contending the exhaustion requirement should not apply to their objections.
- The court reaffirmed that exhaustion is required unless the property is exempt or lies outside the taxing district; the levy here is potentially voidable, not void ab initio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required | Clear Channel/Lamar say exhaustion not necessary for their claims about legal validity. | City argues exhaustion required under Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(a) and (16)(a). | Exhaustion required; dismissal proper |
| Whether Hermann governs the exhaustion rule in this context | Hermann should be limited or distinguished to avoid Board of Review review. | Hermann controls; claims about amount/valuation must go to Board of Review first. | Hermann controls; Board of Review first |
| Do the complaints quantify the 'amount or valuation' of property to trigger exhaustion | Complaint challenges the method of taxation (realty vs personalty) rather than valuation per se. | Reclassification affects amount/valuation and thus requires Board review first. | Complaints primarily challenge amount/valuation; exhaustion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370 (1998) (exhaustion required when tax actions are voidable, not void ab initio)
- Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. City of Madison, 294 Wis. 2d 441 (2006) (permits have real-property value significance in taxation)
- Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler, 219 Wis. 2d 764 (1998) (billboard interest includes structure, leasehold, and location value)
- Strid v. Converse, 111 Wis. 2d 418 (1983) (operative facts govern, not the legal theory)
- Zarder v. Humana Ins. Co., 324 Wis. 2d 325 (2010) (binding appellate court interpretation on exhaustion doctrine)
- St. Croix Valley Home Builders Ass'n, Inc. v. Township of Oak Grove, 327 Wis. 2d 510 (2010) (courts defer to circuit courts on exhaustion determinations)