967 N.W.2d 151
Wis. Ct. App.2021Background
- Saint John’s Communities, a 501(c)(3) owner/operator of a continuing-care retirement community in Milwaukee, had its property exempted from real-estate taxes from 2010–2018.
- In 2018–2019 Saint John’s constructed a new 21‑story residential tower on the same tax parcel; construction was ongoing through 2019 with occupancy scheduled for January 2020.
- The City requested a new exemption application for the new tower; Saint John’s submitted an application in September 2019 that cited a different exemption statute than its prior application.
- The City concluded the tower was new property presumed taxable and treated Saint John’s September application as untimely (deadline March 1), so it assessed 2019 tax on the tower.
- Saint John’s filed administrative claims with the City in Nov. and Dec. 2019 challenging the assessment; the City rejected them as premature because the challenged tax had not yet been collected; Saint John’s paid the first installment and sued on Jan. 22, 2020.
- The circuit court granted Saint John’s partial summary judgment and ordered a refund; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Saint John’s administrative claim and complaint were procedurally deficient and should be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saint John’s administrative claim complied with §74.35’s requirement that a claim be filed against the taxation district that "levied and collected" the tax | Saint John’s: claim timely because it had timely paid an authorized installment and filed claims; payment satisfies timing | City: claim premature because tax had not been collected when claims were filed; §74.35 requires claim after levy and collection by the taxation district | Held: Claim was premature and procedurally deficient; complaint must be dismissed (appellate reversal) |
| Whether Saint John’s was required to file a new exemption application for the newly constructed tower | Saint John’s: no new application required because the property was previously exempt and its use/ownership did not change to make it taxable | City: new construction created property that did not exist in prior year, so a new March 1 application was required; Saint John’s even cited a different statutory exemption in 2019 | Held: Court did not reach the merits of this issue because the procedural defect was dispositive |
| Whether timely payment of an installment allows a taxpayer to file a claim before the taxation district has collected the tax | Saint John’s: timely installment payment (due Jan. 31) means claim may be filed without prepayment prior to collection | City: statutory language anticipates claim after levy and collection by the taxation district; installment payment does not satisfy that requirement | Held: No conflict among subsections, but timely installment payment does not cure the requirement that the claim be against the district that collected the tax; claim was premature |
| Whether the uniformity-clause challenge can proceed despite failure to comply with §74.35 administrative requirements | Saint John’s: constitutional uniformity claim independent of procedure | City: uniformity/excessive-assessment claims are governed by the exclusive statutory scheme; plaintiff must allege compliance | Held: Uniformity claim fails because Saint John’s did not allege or comply with §74.35’s requirements; statutory scheme is exclusive |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370 (Ct. App. 1997) (exclusive statutory scheme and necessity to allege compliance for tax-related claims)
- Smith v. Milwaukee Cnty., 149 Wis. 2d 934 (Ct. App. 1989) (statutory preconditions must be met before suit; failure requires dismissal)
- DOR v. River City Refuse Removal, Inc., 299 Wis. 2d 561 (Wis. 2007) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Fond Du Lac Cnty. v. Town of Rosendale, 149 Wis. 2d 326 (Ct. App. 1989) (legislative intent derived from statutory language)
- Barrows v. American Fam. Ins. Co., 352 Wis. 2d 436 (Ct. App. 2014) (appellate courts need not reach issues when one dispositive issue controls)