Background
Scheels operates a sporting-goods store in one of Oakwood Mall’s anchor units in Eau Claire. The City assessed the property at $7.174 million for 2019 and 2020 and $6.7876 million for 2021. Scheels filed excessive-assessment claims, asserting that the property had been overvalued and overtaxed; the City disallowed the claims.
Scheels then sued for tax refunds under Wisconsin’s excessive-assessment statute. At the bench trial, Scheels offered an expert appraisal relying on ten purportedly comparable sales. The circuit court concluded that most of those sales involved vacant, distressed, bankrupt, transitional, or differently situated properties and found that Scheels had not overcome the presumption that the City’s assessments were correct. It also excluded an undisclosed exhibit concerning other mall-anchor assessments that Scheels sought to use for a state constitutional uniformity argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court adequately stated its ultimate factual finding: all but one of Scheels’s proffered comparable sales were not appropriate comparables. The court was not required to provide further commentary, though it did explain that several sales involved vacancy, distress, bankruptcy, or a different highest and best use.
The appellate court also held that the circuit court’s credibility and evidentiary-weight determinations were supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous. Because Scheels’s suitable comparable produced a price per square foot close to the City’s assessment, and its remaining proof did not rebut the presumption of correctness, dismissal was proper. Scheels also failed to show an erroneous exercise of discretion in excluding its undisclosed uniformity-clause exhibit, particularly because it did not provide the appellate court with the transcript of the pretrial exclusion ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A taxpayer challenging a property-tax assessment must overcome the assessment’s presumption of correctness with proper valuation evidence.
- Comparable sales may be rejected when they involve vacancy, distress, transition, or a different highest and best use than the subject property.
- Appellate courts will not reweigh expert testimony or disturb supported factual and credibility findings after a bench trial.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that retail-property assessment challenges turn heavily on the quality of the selected comparables. Sales of vacant or distressed former retail sites may not establish market value for an operating retail property when those circumstances materially differ.
It also underscores the importance of timely expert disclosures and a complete appellate record. A party challenging an evidentiary ruling bears the consequences of failing to supply the transcript explaining the trial court’s ruling.