A state Supreme Court ruling could lead attorneys away from 'dark store' reasoning in pending Sheboygan lawsuits
The exterior of the Taylor Drive Walmart as seen, Tuesday, August 22, 2022, in Sheboygan, Wis.
The exterior of the Taylor Drive Walmart as seen, Tuesday, August 22, 2022, in Sheboygan, Wis.

SHEBOYGAN COUNTY – Several Walmart lawsuits are pending against Sheboygan County municipalities, but a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling earlier this year could change how they’re handled and if more will follow.

The company has filed several property assessment disputes against the city of Sheboygan, town of Sheboygan and city of Plymouth since 2017, many of which have been consolidated or are still open. A few have been settled.

Several large retailers, including Walmart, have used the “dark store” theory — which argues big box stores’ property assessments should be treated as similar but vacant properties — to lower property appraisals and taxes in municipalities across Wisconsin. Lowe’s, Menards and Walmart are a few.

The court’s opinion in a case involving Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, and the city of Delavan rejected the “dark store loophole” as a viable argument for the company to challenge its property assessment.

Jerry Deschane, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, said the February decision “stuck a fork in the dark story strategy.”

“We never believed it was a legitimate challenge to assessments, and we think the Wisconsin Supreme Court clarified the law in every way,” Deschane said.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce filed several amicus briefs in support of retailers using the “dark stores” loophole, including Lowe’s in this case. The organization said changing state law to allow municipalities to assess “occupied” stores at higher values compared to identical but empty stores would be unlawful.

WMC continued that the property should be assessed, not the business occupying it.

WMC spoke to the 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in part of its amicus brief, which determined assessors can’t factor in rental agreements in property evaluation, as contributing to precedence for assessments. This essentially allowed large businesses renting buildings to claim lower property values.

Lowe's also argued that previous cases, including the one in question in 2008, should be read to say the assessor's evaluation is not always correct in the initial assessment. The court rejected this reasoning, saying that for an evaluation to be determined incorrect, an objector must present sufficient evidence that shows the contrary. The assessment is not presumed inaccurate at the outset.

The recent ruling rejected Lowe’s evidence and large retailers' call for "ever-more expansive readings" of the 2008 decision, according to LWM Legal Counsel Claire Silverman in a February news release.