March 2010 Vol. 3, No. 2
 

Casenotes

Indiana

Condominiums; Real Estate Taxes

The Saddle Ridge Corporation v Board of Review for Town of Pacific, 2007 AP 2886 (Wisc Ct App 2009).

Facts:Saddle Ridge was the developer of three condominiums in the town of Pacific. In 2006, forty-one units that were to be built on vacant land within the condominium developments remained unbuilt.The town notified Saddle Ridge that it would assess the vacant land as forty-one separate tax parcels. Saddle Ridge objected to the 2006 assessment before the town's Board of Review (the Board), arguing that it did not own the vacant land. Saddle Ridge contended that the individual owners of the built units were the proper owners of the land, citing the terms of the condominium declarations, as well as relevant statutes and provisions of the Property Assessment Manual for Wisconsin Assessors. Following the hearing, the Board voted in a tie, thereby upholding the assessment.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that Saddle Ridge was improperly assessed because the land reserved for the unbuilt units was owned by the individual owners under the terms of the condominium declarations. The Board appealed.

Holding:Affirmed. The Board appealed contending that the proper test for ownership for tax assessment purposes is not legal or title ownership, but beneficial ownership. The court of appeals disagreed with the Board's logic, citing to the Condominium Ownership Act (Act). The court stated that by setting forth ownership rights deliberately and completely in the Act, the legislature left no room for the courts to impose a common law test of condominium ownership.

Accordingly, the court concluded that, for purposes of taxation and assessment, ownership of the common elements of the condominium, including vacant land reserved for development, is determined by the condominium declaration. Because the condominium declarations stated that the individual owners of the built units owned the undeveloped land, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's order reversing the Board's decision.

© ATG|Casenotes/Bulletin 1003_v3n2

[Last update: 3-24-10]

Print this page