COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 17, 2009 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Vergeront, Lundsten and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Frank Liska and Peggy Liska
appeal from the judgment of the circuit court that dismissed their certiorari
petition against the
Background
¶2 The Liskas own a home in the
Analysis
¶3 We do not have jurisdiction to disturb the findings and
determinations of a board of review, except when the board “acts in bad faith
or exceeds its jurisdiction.” State
ex rel. Brighton Square Co. v. City of
¶4 The assessor’s valuation is presumed to be correct.
¶5 The Liskas argue that the assessor’s valuation is not entitled to the presumption of correctness. Specifically, they argue that the assessor violated Wis. Stat. § 70.47(8)(h) because he did not provide the Board of Review with all of the evidence on which he based his assessment. This statute requires that the assessor “provide to the board specific information about the validity of the valuation to which objection is made and shall provide to the board the information that the assessor used to determine that valuation.” The Liskas argue that this means that the assessor must provide the board with physical evidence supporting the assessment. In this case, the assessor testified before the board but did not provide the board with physical evidence.
¶6 The Liskas have not cited to any cases or developed an argument about what the assessor must present to the board, other than to say the assessor’s argument cannot just be oral. There is, however, nothing in the statute that requires the assessor to present physical evidence to the board. The statute requires that the assessor provide the board with “specific information.” The statute does not require the assessor to provide the board with a specific type or quantity of evidence, just specific information. The assessor provided the board with specific information about the properties he used for comparables through his testimony. Since the assessor provided the statutorily required information, his valuation is entitled to the presumption of correctness.
¶7 The Liskas also argue that the information the assessor provided to the board by the assessor was insufficient. As we have just explained, however, the Liskas have not explained what Wis. Stat. § 70.47(8)(h) requires an assessor to present to the board to support his or her valuation to obtain the presumption of correctness. The Liskas argue only that the evidence cannot just be oral, and we have rejected that argument. The Liskas’s arguments attacking specific parts of the assessor’s evidence mean little without an explanation of what the statute requires the assessor to actually present to the board. Since the Liskas have not presented a developed argument on the statute’s requirements, we conclude that the Liskas did not rebut the presumption of correctness.
¶8 The Liskas next argue that the board should have relied on
the evidence the Liskas presented. The
board, however, was entitled to reject the evidence it found unpersuasive. We will not disturb those findings absent a
showing that the board acted in bad faith or exceeded its jurisdiction. See
¶9 The Liskas’s final argument is that the board needed to
explain its reasons for its decision.
Once again, the Liskas have not cited any case law to support the
proposition that the board needs to provide a specific level of
explanation. The cases on which the Liskas
rely do not discuss the level of explanation the board must give.
¶10 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.