Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County

286 Wis. 2d 339 (Wis. 2005) · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · December 1, 2005 · No. Nos. 2003AP1732, 2003AP2127

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed decisions concerning Milwaukee County’s condemnation of Gloria Pinczkowski’s property for an airport expansion project. The court held that sale prices from adjacent properties purchased by a condemning authority were inadmissible to establish fair market value, and that a conditional, nonbinding letter of intent was speculative and properly excluded. The court also upheld the determination that Pinczkowski was not entitled to a replacement housing payment.

Holdings

  1. Evidence of the sale prices of properties purchased by a condemning authority in the process of obtaining land for a public project is inadmissible to establish the fair market value of condemned property, even if formal condemnation proceedings had not begun.
  2. When sales to a condemning authority are inherently unreliable indicators of market value, appraisers may not rely on those sales as facts or data underlying their valuation opinions.
  3. The Hertz letter of intent was properly excluded because it was preliminary, conditional, nonbinding, expired without Pinczkowski's signature, and speculative evidence of fair market value.
  4. Pinczkowski was not entitled to a replacement housing payment because the acquisition payment for her condemned property exceeded the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling, and the initial replacement-payment calculation was contingent on acceptance of the County's offer.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether evidence of the prices Milwaukee County paid for adjacent properties was admissible to establish the fair market value of Pinczkowski's condemned property.
  2. Whether Pinczkowski's appraisers could rely on the adjacent-property sales as a basis for their valuation opinions.
  3. Whether evidence of Hertz's conditional, nonbinding letter of intent was admissible to establish fair market value or private-party interest in the property.
  4. Whether Pinczkowski was entitled to a replacement housing payment under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(4)(a) and the related administrative code provisions.
  5. What level of deference applied to the Department of Commerce's interpretation and application of the replacement-housing provisions.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee County, 2004 WI App 171, 276 Wis. 2d 520, 687 N.W.2d 791(followed)
  • Blick v. Ozaukee County, 180 Wis. 45, 192 N.W. 380 (1923)(followed)
  • Kirkpatrick v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 522, 192 N.W.2d 856 (1972)(followed)
  • Herro v. DNR, 67 Wis. 2d 407, 227 N.W.2d 456 (1975)(followed)
  • Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler, 219 Wis. 2d 764, 580 N.W.2d 644 (1998)(followed)
  • Wisconsin Town House Builders, Inc. v. City of Madison, 37 Wis. 2d 44, 154 N.W.2d 232 (1967)(followed)
  • Cain v. City of Topeka, 603 P.2d 1031 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)(not adopted)
  • Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. O'Brien, 418 F.2d 15 (5th Cir. 1969)(not adopted)
  • Slattery Co. v. United States, 231 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1956)(not adopted)
  • Amory v. Commonwealth, 72 N.E.2d 549 (Mass. 1947)(not adopted)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Wisconsin Supreme Court