August 2009 Vol. 2, No. 8
 

Casenotes

Wisconsin

Tax Assessments

Buckett v Jante, 2008 AP 2166 (Wisc Ct App, 2009).

Facts:A county highway separated the property belonging to Buckett from that belonging to Jante. The highway was relocated in the 1960s so that the new route left a small parcel belonging to Jante adjacent to Buckett's property. Starting in the 1970s, Racine County listed that parcel as belonging to Buckett and taxed him accordingly. In an eminent domain proceeding in 2005, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation purchased the property from Jante for $63,000. It was the first time either Buckett or Jante realized that Buckett had been paying taxes on his neighbors' property.

Buckett asked Jante to reimburse him for the taxes he had paid, but they refused. Buckett then filed suit against them under the theory of unjust enrichment. Jante claimed that he had not received a benefit because he had also been paying taxes on the same parcel of land.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. An essential element of an unjust enrichment claim is that the defendant knew of or appreciated the benefit of the plaintiff's actions. Because Buckett did not prove that Jante knew of or appreciated the benefit during the time he paid taxes on their land, the court ruled for Jante.

Holding:Reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to determine if Racine county double-taxed the parcel at issue. The circuit court misapplied the law concerning unjust enrichment because there was never a requirement that the benefit be contemporaneous with the defendant's knowledge or appreciation of it. The knowledge requirement existed to give the defendant an opportunity to reject the benefit, which Jante was given when Buckett requested reimbursement.

© ATG|Casenotes/Bulletin 0908_v2n8

[Last update: 9-2-09]

Print this page