Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin, 801 N.W.2d 395

Relator Continental Retail challenges Hennepin County's market value determinations for a Brooklyn Park commercial property for Jan 2, 2006; Jan 2, 2007; Jan 2, 2008.
Property: ~124,432 sq ft building (one floor) with ~23,325 sq ft building area and ~22,767 sq ft leasing area; constructed 2004.
Ownership: Continental Retail, development company owned by Bradley Hoyt; occupancy waned from 73% to 62% across the three years.
Experts: Continental relied on Kramer (owner-provided valuations); County relied on Stoerzinger; trial record included multiple building movement reports and a settlement with Edina Realty in 2008.
Tax court increased values for all three years; Continental petitioned for certiorari; post-trial briefs filed and final values set as $3,776,600 (2006), $3,967,200 (2007), $2,416,600 (2008).
Contemporary issues included whether the building’s settlement and movement were detrimental conditions and whether Kramer valued leased fee vs. fee simple.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualification of Stoerzinger as expert	Stoerzinger not qualified to testify on detrimental conditions.	Tax court properly admitted expert testimony under Rule 702.	Precluded on appeal; post-trial motion required to review evidentiary rulings.
Detrimental condition affecting market value pre-2008	Building settlement affected value as of 2006 and 2007.	No detrimental effect until 2008.	Record supports no adverse effect until 2008; settlement not detrimental beforehand.
Kramer valued leased fee vs. fee simple	Leased fee and fee simple are equivalent; Kramer properly valued accordingly.	Leased fee is not the entire unencumbered interest; valuation should reflect fee simple.	Tax court correct: Kramer improperly valued leased fee; inappropriate to treat as fee simple.
Weight given to appraisal approaches	Income approach should be weighed more heavily; sales approach undervalued due to vacancies.	Sales and cost approaches more informative; income approach minimal due to vacancy.	Tax court’s reconciliation and weighting reasonable; not clearly erroneous.

S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop v. Cnty. of Renville, 737 N.W.2d 545 (Minn.2007) (review of tax court decisions: grounds include lack of jurisdiction or error of law)
Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 797 N.W.2d 186 (Minn.2011) (deference to tax court on valuation; clear error standard)
TMG Life Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Goodhue, 540 N.W.2d 848 (Minn.1995) (Rule 702; evidentiary standards for expert testimony)
Alpha Real Estate Co. v. Delta Dental Plan, 664 N.W.2d 303 (Minn.2003) (preservation of evidentiary rulings via post-trial motion)
Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 576 N.W.2d 445 (Minn.1998) (tax court trial rulings and appellate review)
McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc. v. Cnty. of Dodge, 705 N.W.2d 410 (Minn.2005) (appellate review principles for tax valuation)
Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 572 N.W.2d 51 (Minn.1997) (clear error standard and deferential review framework)
The Appraisal of Real Estate, unshown in this list (unofficial) (text cited for appraisal methodologies; not a case)