Statutory Interpretation

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: St. Raphael’s Congregation v. City of Madison

Case No.: 2016AP2319

Officials: Lundsten, P.J., Kloppenburg and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation

St. Raphael’s Congregation challenges the 2014 taxation of property the Congregation owns in downtown Madison. The property includes the site of the former St. Raphael’s Cathedral, which was destroyed by an arson fire in 2005. The Congregation seeks an exemption for this property under WIS. STAT. § 70.11(4)(a).

The Congregation argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that the property here was not “necessary for [the] location … of buildings” as that phrase is used in the statute. However, we agree with the City that Deutsches Land, Inc. v. City of Glendale, 225 Wis. 2d 70, 591 N.W.2d 583 (1999), compels the conclusion that the property did not satisfy this statutory “necessary-forbuildings” requirement, and therefore was not exempt, in the 2014 tax year. Specifically, Deutsches Land holds that, for property to be “necessary for location and convenience of buildings,” the property must in fact have a building on it, something that was not true during the tax year at issue here. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order dismissing the Congregation’s challenge to the 2014 taxation of the property.

The City cross-appeals, arguing an alternative ground for affirming the circuit court’s bottom-line decision. The City disagrees with the circuit court’s conclusion that the property met the exclusive-use requirement. That is, the City contends that the court could have and should have concluded that the property was not tax exempt for the additional reason that the property did not satisfy the exclusive-use requirement. We fail to understand why a cross-appeal was necessary to raise this alternative reason for affirming the circuit court’s decision. Regardless, we need not reach this alternative argument because we agree with the City that the circuit court correctly dismissed the Congregation’s challenge based on the necessary-for-buildings requirement. See Barrows v. American Family Ins. Co., 2014 WI App 11, ¶9, 352 Wis. 2d 436, 842 N.W.2d 508 (2013) (“An appellate court need not address every issue raised by the parties when one issue is dispositive.”).

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.