A dispute over a missed deadline for appealing a property tax assessment has ended with an appellate court upholding the city board’s decision, highlighting the importance of timely action in local tax matters. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released its decision on March 3, 2026, affirming an earlier order from Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David L. Borowski in favor of the City of Milwaukee Board of Review against RDAR Corporation.
RDAR Corporation filed the appeal after the City of Milwaukee Board of Review denied its request to submit a late objection to a revised property tax assessment for its South 1st Street property. According to case documents, in 2022, RDAR’s property was assessed at $845,400—an increase exceeding 300% from the prior year. Brian Read, RDAR’s registered agent, contacted Vicente Hernandez at the Assessor’s Office multiple times during July and August 2022 to discuss what he believed was a “drastically over-assessed” value and sought guidance on how to challenge it.
On October 5, 2022, the city sent RDAR a determination letter reducing the assessment to $591,800 and informing them they had until October 20 to file an appeal. Read claims he never received this letter and only learned about it after contacting Hernandez on October 25—five days past the deadline. After being told that his window for appeal had closed, Read was advised by city staff that he could submit a late objection form explaining his circumstances under Wisconsin Statute §70.47 and board rules requiring “good cause” for such requests.
RDAR submitted its late objection through counsel on November 18, 2022. A hearing before the Board took place on November 30, where members considered whether extraordinary circumstances justified accepting RDAR’s late filing. The Board ultimately denied the request, finding that good cause had not been established.
RDAR then petitioned for certiorari review in circuit court, arguing that the Board’s denial was “arbitrary and unreasonable,” claiming it misunderstood or failed to properly apply its own good cause standard. Specifically, RDAR said it never received notice due to mail delivery issues and that Read had been “proactive and diligent” in seeking updates from city officials.
The circuit court sided with the Board, stating there was enough evidence in the record supporting their conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances existed and thus no good cause for accepting a late appeal.
On further appeal to the Court of Appeals (case number 2024AP1326), judges reviewed whether the Board acted within its jurisdiction and according to law; whether its actions were arbitrary or unreasonable; and whether decisions were supported by evidence. The appellate panel noted municipal boards’ decisions are presumed correct unless proven otherwise.
The opinion acknowledged imperfections in transcripts from the hearing—attributed partly to technical issues—but stated these did not invalidate proceedings because other documents provided sufficient context for review. The court observed that while some confusion existed among board members regarding receipt versus delayed receipt of notice by RDAR, both scenarios were discussed during deliberations. Ultimately, board members determined that mailing errors are not typically considered extraordinary circumstances justifying late appeals when notices are sent as required by law.
The opinion also addressed RDAR’s claim about ongoing communication with city staff as evidence of diligence but found this argument unpersuasive since municipal boards have discretion over how much weight they give such factors.
In conclusion, the appellate court found no basis for overturning either lower court or board decisions: “the record sufficiently demonstrates that the Board had a rational basis to deny RDAR’s request for a late appeal.”
The order affirming denial is final unless further review is sought from higher courts as permitted under state law. Attorneys representing each party were not named in this document; Judge David L. Borowski presided at circuit level; appellate judges Colon (presiding), Donald, and Geenen issued this per curiam opinion under case ID 2024AP1326.
Source: 2024AP1326_RDAR_Corporation_v_City_of_Milwaukee_Board_of_Review_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf