Donald J. Thoma v. Village of Slinger
912 N.W.2d 56
Wis.2018Background
- Donald Thoma bought 62 acres in 2004 to develop "Pleasant Farm Estates." The land had historically been assessed as agricultural but was rezoned residential and subject to a developer agreement containing a restrictive covenant prohibiting agricultural use.
- The Village obtained a 2012 injunction enforcing the covenant and prohibiting agricultural activity on the property; the injunction suit is separate and appealed.
- In the 2014 Board of Review hearing Thoma (and his counsel) said he was maintaining ground cover to market lots and denied farming; the assessor, Grota, testified he reclassified the land as residential because he believed an injunction required it.
- The Board (2–1) upheld the residential assessment, finding Thoma failed to rebut the assessor’s presumed valuation; one member dissented, citing personal observations of hay bailing on the property.
- Thoma lost certiorari review in circuit court and the court of appeals. He then sought relief under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h) based on later depositions showing the Department of Revenue official (Chaneske) did not tell Grota that an injunction mandates reclassification; the circuit court denied relief and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thoma) | Defendant's Argument (Village) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an injunction prohibiting agricultural use controls tax classification | The injunction (and prior understandings) should not prevent finding the property was actually used agriculturally; hay/alfalfa and ground-cover maintenance satisfy statutory "agricultural use." | Classification depends on actual use; zoning or injunctions do not override tax-law definitions; record shows ground-cover maintenance, not agricultural production. | Held: Classification depends on actual use; injunctions/restrictive covenants do not control assessment. Residential classification affirmed. |
| Whether Thoma presented sufficient evidence at the Board to rebut the assessor's presumption | Thoma argued prior agricultural classification and asserted use had not changed; later evidence (depositions) shows assessor misunderstood DOR guidance. | Village: Thoma failed to present evidence at the Board that crops were being produced/sold or that the land met DOR/NAICS crop-production criteria. | Held: Thoma failed to meet his burden at the Board; transcript shows denial of farming and only ground-cover maintenance; presumption unrebutted. |
| Whether the assessor’s erroneous testimony that the DOR required reclassification infected the Board’s decision | Thoma: Grota’s incorrect testimony meaningfully affected the Board and justifies vacatur/remand. | Village: Even if Grota erred, the Board’s decision turned on lack of evidence of agricultural use, not the assessor’s misunderstanding. | Held: Although Grota erred, the record shows the Board decided based on lack of proof of agricultural use; error did not warrant relief. |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion in denying § 806.07(1)(h) relief based on post-hearing evidence | Thoma: Chaneske’s deposition is new evidence showing Grota misrepresented DOR guidance; this justifies vacating the prior order and remanding. | Village: The motion was untimely for other § 806.07 grounds; the § 806.07(1)(h) catchall was properly denied because no extraordinary circumstances and finality interests weigh against relief. | Held: Circuit court did not err; no extraordinary/unique facts shown that would justify relief under § 806.07(1)(h). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Rev., 352 Wis. 2d 576, 843 N.W.2d 39 (Wis. 2014) (standards and scope for certiorari review of board of review decisions)
- Fee v. Bd. of Rev. for Town of Florence, 259 Wis. 2d 868, 657 N.W.2d 112 (Ct. App. 2003) (use, not zoning, controls assessment classification)
- Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Bd. of Rev., 325 Wis. 2d 29, 784 N.W.2d 527 (Wis. 2010) (review limited to record presented to board)
- Dempze Cranberry Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Rev., 143 Wis. 2d 879, 422 N.W.2d 902 (Ct. App. 1988) (presumption of assessor’s valuation and taxpayer’s burden)
- Hemker v. Huggett, 114 Wis. 2d 320, 338 N.W.2d 335 (Ct. App. 1983) (review confined to board record even if incomplete)
- Miller v. Hanover Ins. Co., 326 Wis. 2d 640, 785 N.W.2d 493 (Wis. 2010) (erroneous exercise of discretion standard for § 806.07 review)
- Sukala v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 282 Wis. 2d 46, 698 N.W.2d 610 (Wis. 2005) (standards for § 806.07(1)(h) relief)