Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Review of Dallas County, 15-1562

Kohl’s Department Stores challenged the 2013 Dallas County Board of Review assessment of its West Des Moines store (assessed at $8,357,450); district court affirmed and Kohl’s appealed.
Kohl’s presented two valuation experts (Dane Anderson and Kyran Cook) and a company fact witness (Scott Schnuckel) to show market value was lower than the assessor’s valuation.
The Board presented two appraisers (Ranney Ramsey and Mark Nelson) who valued the property at amounts supporting the assessor’s figure using sales-comparison and other approaches.
The district court found Kohl’s three witnesses incompetent and credited the Board’s experts; on de novo review the Court of Appeals disagreed with the incompetency findings for Kohl’s valuation witnesses.
Because Kohl’s presented two competent valuation experts, the statutory burden shifted to the Board; the court then evaluated credibility and persuasiveness of competing expert opinions and affirmed the assessment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of appellate review	District court improperly adopted Board’s brief; review should scrutinize that practice	De novo review governs; adoption of a brief requires no additional standard beyond careful scrutiny	De novo review applies; no additional heightened standard required
Competency of plaintiff’s valuation witnesses	Anderson, Cook, Schnuckel were competent to offer valuation/factual testimony	District court found them incompetent for failing to follow statutory appraisal scheme or recognized methods	Anderson and Cook were competent appraisers; Schnuckel was admissible as a fact witness (not an expert)
Persuasiveness of adjustments/methodology	Plaintiff’s adjustments (qualitative or per-square-foot comparisons) were valid appraisal methods or factual support	Board argued failures to quantify or reliance on related-party sales undermined plaintiff’s opinions	Many adjustments went to weight, not competency; related-party sales and qualitative judgments affect credibility, not admissibility
Credibility of Board’s experts and ultimate valuation	Plaintiff argued Board’s experts used flawed adjustments and non-certified appraiser	Board argued their experts were qualified and used accepted appraisal methods supporting assessment	Court found Board’s experts’ methods and judgments persuasive and affirmed $8,357,450 assessment

Compiano v. Bd. of Review, 771 N.W.2d 392 (Iowa 2009) (de novo review and statutory competency standard for valuation witnesses)
Soults Farms, Inc. v. Schafer, 797 N.W.2d 92 (Iowa 2011) (appellate scrutiny when trial court aligns with a party brief)
Soifer v. Floyd Cty. Bd. of Review, 759 N.W.2d 775 (Iowa 2009) (distinguishing admissibility/competency from persuasiveness of appraisal testimony)
Wellmark, Inc. v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Review, 875 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2016) (comparability and credibility of comparable sales for valuation)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sieren, 484 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (expert judgment in assessment cases is central and often not objectively conclusive)
Dowden v. Dickinson Cty. Bd. of Review, 338 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (questions of methodology affecting competency of valuation testimony)