COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 11, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark 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 Brown County: j. d. mckay, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.
Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The law firm of Biersdorf
& Associates appeals a judgment finding it was not entitled to a contingent
fee resulting from a reduction in tax liability on Atlas Warehouse Cold
Storage’s property. The trial court
found the reduction was not the result of Biersdorf’s involvement. Because we conclude the trial court’s
finding is not supported by the evidence, we reverse the judgment and remand to
the trial court for a determination whether the contingent fee was reasonable,
and, if it is not, to determine a reasonable fee.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On June 28,
1996, Atlas and Biersdorf entered into a contingent fee agreement. Biersdorf agreed to perform legal services
in order to achieve property tax reductions on Atlas’s property in Green
Bay. Atlas agreed to pay attorney fees
of one-third of the tax savings. The
contract covered the years 1996-1998.
The dispute arose with the 1997 property tax assessment.
¶3 Atlas received
a notice from the City of Green Bay in November 1997 that the value of Atlas’s
property had been reassessed and substantially increased. Atlas contacted Biersdorf to attempt to get
a reduction of the assessment. After
providing Atlas with its analysis of the assessment, Biersdorf set up a meeting
with Lee Clouse, the assessor.
Representatives from Biersdorf and Atlas, as well as the assessor
attended the meeting.
¶4 Before the
meeting Clouse made a printout of the assessment to use at the meeting and
realized the assessment was wrong.
Clouse then went into the meeting, and a reduction of the assessment was
discussed. Subsequently, after further
review by Clouse, the assessment was reduced by $5,000,000.
¶5 Biersdorf
requested its contingent fee for 1997 and 1998 based on the reduction, for a
total of $85,269. Atlas refused to pay
the fee. The trial court determined
that Biersdorf was not entitled to a contingent fee because the correction had
nothing to do with Biersdorf’s involvement.
Biersdorf appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6 The trial
court’s determination that the correction had nothing to do with Biersdorf’s
involvement represents a finding of fact. We will not disturb such a finding unless it is clearly
erroneous. Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2).
DISCUSSION
¶7 Biersdorf
contends the trial court ignored the work that Biersdorf did to bring about the
detection of the valuation error and its subsequent correction. Biersdorf argues that the error would not
have been recognized had Biersdorf not set up the meeting with the
assessor. Atlas argues, however, that
the error was obvious and that Clouse found the error before the meeting took
place. Therefore, Atlas maintains
Biersdorf’s involvement had nothing to do with the reduction.
¶8 The record
supports Biersdorf’s argument that it was involved in bringing about the
reduction. Biersdorf arranged the
meeting to discuss the assessment. Just
before this meeting, Clouse made a printout of the assessment, which alerted
him to the mistake. This mistake was
subsequently corrected, resulting in the $5,000,000 reduction in the building’s
valuation. Clouse testified that if the
assessment had not been called to his attention, the error would have remained
uncorrected. The assessment was brought
to his attention as a direct result of Biersdorf’s involvement in setting up
the meeting. Atlas’s argument that
Clouse became aware of the error before the meeting took place is not the
decisive factor. Instead, the decisive
factor is that the error would not have been found if not for Biersdorf’s
efforts in arranging the meeting.
¶9 We
consequently determine that the trial court’s finding that the correction had
nothing to do with Biersdorf’s expertise or involvement is clearly
erroneous. The further question
regarding whether the contingent fee is reasonable is a question of fact for
the trial court. See Village
of Shorewood v. Steinberg, 174 Wis. 2d 191, 204, 496 N.W.2d 57
(1993). The trial court here never
reached this issue. We therefore remand
the case for a determination whether the contingent fee was reasonable
and, if it is not, to determine a reasonable fee.
By the Court.—Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.