Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Estate Planning & Taxation

Court Outlines Property Assessment Law
for Land Under Federal Conservation Contract

Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Fee v. Board of Review for the Town of Florence, 657 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin held that the Board of Review for the Town of Florence (Board) waived its requirement that taxpayers must complete an objection form in writing. The court also found that a portion of the appellants' land containing a hayfield should have been classified as agricultural property, that a portion of their land that was subject to federal conservation contract was not agricultural land, and that the effect of a conservation restriction should have been considered when valuing their property. Id. at 112-15.

Appellants owned approximately 235 acres in the town of Florence, 93 of which were used as a hayfield, and 142 of which were subject to a federal conservation contract. Id. at 113. In November 2000, the Town of Florence notified the landowners that their property had been assessed at $228,000 for that tax year and they appeared before the Board to challenge the assessment. Id. at 113. The landowners argued that the property was agricultural land and had to be valued according to its use value, rather than its fair market value, and that the assessor had failed to consider the conservation contract's effect on the value of the property. Id. The assessor replied that he did not consider the hayfield to be agricultural land because the landowners allowed a neighbor to cut the field, rather than cutting it themselves. Id. at 113-14. In addition, the assessor claimed that the existence of a conservation easement was not relevant to the property's value, and that the landowners had violated the requirement that the objection be made in writing when they left blank the question on the objection form that asked their opinion as to the fair market value of the property. Id.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the Board had waived the requirement that the objection be completed in writing because the Board never requested a completed form and it completed the hearing. Id. at 114. Although the transcript of the Board's meeting did not reveal that final action was taken, a Notice of Board of Review Final Determination was issued and dated the same day as the meeting. Id. at 114-15. The court went on to hold that the portion of the plaintiffs' land that contained the hayfield should have been classified as agricultural property for tax assessment purposes, regardless of whether the plaintiffs cut the field themselves. Id. at 116. The court found that the portion of the plaintiffs' land that was subject to the conservation contract was not agricultural land for tax assessment purposes. Id. at 116. Furthermore, the court concluded that even though the portion of the land that was held under a conservation contract was not agricultural land for tax assessment purposes, the existence of the conservation contract should have been considered by the assessor in valuing that property. Id. at 116-17.

The case was decided on December 23, 2002; this summary was posted July 20, 2007.