BANK WINS $400,000+ JUDGMENT AGAINST CITY

Six-Year-Old Case had been Appealed in 2003

Special to the Readers of Milwaukeeworld

By Michael Horne

Attorney Robert L. Gordon (UW-'75) of Michael Best and Friedrich bested City Attorney Grant Langley (Marquette-'70) and his staff in the case of U.S. Bank v. City of Milwaukee, filed way back in 2002, and settled just yesterday. Judge Michael J. Dwyer (Georgetown-'75) entered a judgment against the city yesterday, Monday, February 11th, 2008, in the sum of $440,430.03, plus interest of 0.8% per month retroactive to January 1st, 2008. After February 1st, the rate jumps to 1 per cent per month.

In the case, the bank alleged "excessive assessments" at 12 branch banks from 2001 to 2006, resulting in the damages awarded yesterday. The city's Judiciary and Legislation Committee will consider the matter at its hearing scheduled for Thursday, St. Valentine's Day, 2008. The committee may recommend the matter, file 071429, for further consideration by the Finance and Personnel Committee.
The taxpayers will foot the bill using proceeds of the City's Contingency Fund, once approved.
Banks can be tricky things to assess. The buildings are often highly specialized and difficult to retrofit once the bank moves out. A bank building minus the bank can be well-nigh valueless, according to assessors' thinking and experience. However, the building type is sufficiently rare as to not admit of many comparable properties, complicating the assessment process. Plus, banks have lots of money, so it's always tempting to charge them a little extra.

CASE HAD BEEN APPEALED
The case was sent to the court of appeals in 2003 as case 03-724, and the city lost based on a previous court decision ruling that objections to Milwaukee County assessments could be filed under Wisconsin Statutes 74.37. (Milwaukee had previously been considered a special case because its population was over 500,000.) That case, Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, had also been won by Gordon, and has led to his being quite busy with his specialty of tax law.

JUSTICE FINE SLAPS CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE IN APPEAL FOOTNOTE
CITY HAD CALLED OPPONENTS' CASE "Hogwash," "Ludicrous," "Crazy," "Obstructionistanarchist"

Is this any way for an attorney to talk?

In the 2003 appeals case cited above, Judge Ralph Adam Fine (Columbia-'65) made a special footnote excoriating the city attorney's office for its handling of the case. According to footnote 4:

"The brief submitted to us by the City of Milwaukee is overly tendentious and lacks the
civility that lawyers owe to both their adversaries and to the courts. The following has no place in a
brief before any court in this state: accusing an opposing party of seeking “political anarchy”
(capitalization omitted), “anarchy,” “anarchy with a vengeance,” and “taxpayer anarchy,” which the
City’s brief does on pages fifteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-two; accusing an opposing party of
“creating a ‘sideshow,’” which the City’s brief does on page twenty; accusing an opposing party of
advancing “crazy arguments” that “are ludicrous,” which the City’s brief does on page twenty-two;
characterizing an opponent’s arguments as “hogwash” (capitalization omitted), which the City’s brief
does on pages twenty-two and twenty-four; accusing an opposing party of being an “obstructionist,”
which the City’s brief does on page forty-two; accusing opposing parties of being “obstructionistanarchists,”
which the City’s brief does on page fifty; contending that a decision in an opponent’s
favor would “reward anarchy,” which the City’s brief does on page fifty; characterizing an
opponent’s argument as “ridiculous,” which the City’s brief does on page fifty-two; and
characterizing an opponent’s argument as “crazy,” which the City’s brief does on page fifty-two.
In our view, these comments violate SCR 62.02(1)(a), because they do not reflect a “cordial
and respectful demeanor”; SCR 62.02(1)(b), because they are not “civil”; SCR 62.02(1)(c), because
they are “disparaging, demeaning [and] sarcastic”; and SCR 62.02(1)(d), because they are “uncivil,
abrasive, abusive, hostile, [and] obstructive.” ... (“Civility is one aspect of professionalism
that all attorneys should strive for.”).
--Michael Horne