Rider Hotel, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company v. City of Milwaukee, a Municipal Corporation

CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedJune 11, 2024
Docket2022AP001141
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rider Hotel, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company v. City of Milwaukee, a Municipal Corporation (Rider Hotel, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company v. City of Milwaukee, a Municipal Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rider Hotel, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company v. City of Milwaukee, a Municipal Corporation, (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION NOTICE DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. June 11, 2024 A party may file with the Supreme Court a Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP1141 Cir. Ct. No. 2018CV5246

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I

RIDER HOTEL, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

CITY OF MILWAUKEE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: CARL ASHLEY, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Donald, P.J., Geenen and Colón, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Rider Hotel, LLC (“Rider”), owner of the Iron Horse Hotel in Milwaukee (“Property” or “Iron Horse”), appeals from a judgment No. 2022AP1141

of the circuit court dismissing its claims for partial property tax refunds under WIS. STAT. § 74.37(3)(d) (2017-18),1 arguing that the City of Milwaukee’s (“City”) 2017 and 2018 assessments of the Property were excessive in violation of WIS. STAT. § 70.32(1). Specifically, Rider argues that the City’s assessments upon which the circuit court relied failed to follow the Markarian hierarchy,2 unlawfully averaged the Property’s historical work-up values to calculate the Property’s fair market value, and failed to account for “multiple significant factors” affecting the Property’s fair market value. We reject Rider’s arguments and affirm.

BACKGROUND3

¶2 Rider brought this action against the City under WIS. STAT. § 74.37(3)(d), claiming that it was entitled to partial property tax refunds because

1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted. 2 In State ex rel. Markarian v. City of Cudahy, 45 Wis. 2d 683, 685-86, 173 N.W.2d 627 (1970), the Wisconsin Supreme Court set forth a tiered system of approaches for calculating the fair market value of real estate for property tax assessment purposes in which assessors are to apply the highest tier that the best practicably available information will allow. See also State ex rel. Collison v. City of Milwaukee Bd. of Rev., 2021 WI 48, ¶¶23-26, 397 Wis. 2d 246, 960 N.W.2d 1. The tiered system is now codified at WIS. STAT. § 70.32(1).

Here, the City assessor applied a tier three “income approach” while Rider argues that it should have used a tier two “sales comparison approach.” 3 The parties are reminded that WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(d)-(e) (2021-22) requires the parties to reference and cite to the record in their appellate briefs. Citations to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed with the circuit court are technically citations to the record, but they are not as helpful as citations to actual trial transcripts and exhibits, and they are affirmatively unhelpful when the proposed findings themselves contain no record citations.

2 No. 2022AP1141

the City’s 2017 and 2018 assessments of the Property were excessive in violation of WIS. STAT. § 70.32(1).4

¶3 The circuit court conducted a bench trial from May 24 to May 26, 2021, during which the parties each presented evidence regarding the Property’s fair market value, including the testimony and appraisal reports of their respective expert witnesses: Duane Debelak as Rider’s appraiser, and James Wiegand as the City’s assessor.

¶4 Debelak performed a tier two “sales comparison approach” to calculate the Property’s fair market value.5 Debelak identified six properties that he claimed were reasonably comparable to the Iron Horse, but he had to make large adjustments in order to bring those properties in line with the Iron Horse. Four of the six properties reflected a net adjustment between 35% and 40% while another property reflected a 70% net adjustment, and Debelak admitted that “the higher the percentage of adjustment, the less similarity” between the subject property and the comparative property. The Iron Horse has a full-service restaurant that comprised approximately 40% of its total revenue. However, only one of the proposed comparable properties had a full-service restaurant like the Iron Horse, while another had a bar/lounge with no onsite kitchen; the remaining four had no restaurant, bar, or lounge. Additionally, while the Iron Horse is

4 Rider filed timely objections and appeals of the 2017 and 2018 assessments with the City’s Board of Review. The Board of Assessors and Board of Review sustained both assessments and disallowed Rider’s claims, prompting the filing of the instant case in the circuit court. 5 It is undisputed that the Property had not been recently sold, so a tier one approach could not be performed. Debelak also performed a tier three income approach “as a check” on the tier two sales comparison approach, but he did not rely on the income approach in his final value conclusion.

3 No. 2022AP1141

categorized as an “upper upscale” hotel, only one of the six comparable properties was identified by Debelak as sharing that category.

¶5 Wiegand considered a tier two sales comparison approach, but determined that there were no recent arm’s-length sales of reasonably comparable properties.6 Quoting the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual (“WPAM”), Wiegand said that it is extraordinarily difficult to perform an accurate sales comparison approach to hotel properties “because individual properties may differ greatly in services, reputation, age, and location all of which can affect value.” Wiegand also cited a textbook by Stephen Rushmore related to the valuation of hotel properties, and testified that Rushmore’s method of hotel valuation is employed by the City. In determining whether other hotel properties were reasonably comparable to the Iron Horse, Wiegand consulted a rank-ordered list of factors from Rushmore. Wiegand analyzed Debelak’s six proposed comparable properties in light of those factors and determined that they were too dissimilar in “location, construction, physical condition, layout, equipment, size, services, and amenities” to support a tier two sales comparison analysis.

¶6 Instead, Wiegand conducted a tier three income approach. He reviewed the income and expense data provided by Rider for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, in comparison with market data. Wiegand

6 The 2017 and 2018 versions of the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual (“WPAM”), which assessors must follow in valuing real property for tax assessment purposes, WIS. STAT. § 70.32(1), defines an “arm’s-length sale” as “[a] sale between two parties neither of whom is related to or under abnormal pressure from the other.” 1 Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual G-31.

All references to the WPAM are to both the 2017 and 2018 versions unless otherwise noted.

4 No. 2022AP1141

created four individual “work-up” values for 2015-2018, one for each year, based on the prior year’s operating data, then averaged those work-up values to reach an opinion of the Property’s fair market value as of the assessment date. That is, the work-up value for 2015 was based on 2014 operating data, the work-up value for 2016 was based on 2015 operating data, etc. Wiegand averaged the work-up values for 2015, 2016, and 2017 to reach an opinion of the Property’s fair market value as of January 1, 2017. He averaged the work-up values for 2016, 2017, and 2018 to reach an opinion of the Property’s fair market value as of January 1, 2018.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Markarian v. City of Cudahy
173 N.W.2d 627 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
Powers v. Allstate Insurance
102 N.W.2d 393 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1960)
Rosen v. City of Milwaukee
242 N.W.2d 681 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1976)
Flood v. Village of Lomira, Board of Review
451 N.W.2d 422 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1990)
Ronald L. Collison v. City of Milwaukee Board of Review
2021 WI 48 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2021)
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Porth
23 N.W. 105 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. City of Delavan
2023 WI 8 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rider Hotel, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company v. City of Milwaukee, a Municipal Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rider-hotel-llc-a-domestic-limited-liability-company-v-city-of-wisctapp-2024.