Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2026)
Affidavit of assessor
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
70.49(1)(1) Before the meeting of the board of review, the assessor shall attach to the completed assessment roll an affidavit in a form prescribed by the department of revenue.
70.49(2)(2) The value of all real property entered into the assessment roll to which such affidavit is attached by the assessor shall, in all actions and proceedings involving such values, be presumptive evidence that all such properties have been justly and equitably assessed in proper relationship to each other.
70.49(3)(3) No assessor shall be allowed in any court or place by oath or testimony to contradict or impeach any affidavit or certificate made or signed by the assessor as assessor.
70.49(4)(4) In this section “assessor” means an assessor or any person appointed or designated under s. 70.055 or 70.75.
70.49 AnnotationPursuant to sub. (2), the presumption of correctness afforded to an assessment attaches at the filing of the assessment by the assessor along with the required affidavit. If an assessment is conducted contrary to the dictates of the Property Assessment Manual, that does not mean that the presumption does not initially attach. Rather, if, in the context of a s. 74.37 action, the failure to follow the manual results in an excessive assessment, then the presumption is overcome and the assessment must be set aside. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC v. City of Delavan, 2023 WI 8, 405 Wis. 2d 616, 985 N.W.2d 69, 19-1987.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1939–2026 · leading case: Regency West Apts. LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99 (Wis. 2016).
Regency West Apts. LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99 (Wis. 2016). “§ 42 restrictions;5 whether Regency West has overcome the presumption of correctness set out in Wis. Stat. § 70.49 ; and whether Regency West proved the tax assessments for 2012 and 2013 were excessive.”
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. City of Delavan, 2023 WI 8 (Wis. 2023). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2) (2019-20),2 the presumption attaches upon 1 Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v.”
Adams Outdoor Advert., Ltd. v. City of Madison, 2006 WI 104 (Wis. 2006). “Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2). However, the assessment is presumed correct only if the challenging party does not present significant contrary evidence.”
Nankin v. Vill. of Shorewood, 2001 WI 92 (Wis. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2). Finally, unlike a certiorari review, in a trial, the court, upon making its determination, is not required to remand to the board for an assessment.”
U.S. Oil Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2) (2007-08). 1 Additionally, we agree with the trial court that the appropriate remedy in this case was to reinstate the initial $6 million assessments.”
Bonstores Realty One, LLC v. City of Wauwatosa, 2013 WI App 131 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2). ¶ 8. Wisconsin Stat.”
Vincent Milewski v. Town of Dover, 2017 WI 79 (Wis. 2017). “"); Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2) ("The value of all real and personal property entered into the assessment 10 As we noted in State v.”
Frank J. Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Review, 2014 WI 9 (Wis. 2014). “(citing Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2)). 14 No. 2010AP3015 ¶33 The Shove case has since been cited for the proposition that, absent sufficient evidence, a board cannot change an assessment.”
Allright Props., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2009 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “The assessor's assessment " 'is presumed correct only if the challenging party does not present significant contrary evidence'" and " '[n]o presumption of correctness may be accorded to an assessment that does not apply the principles in the Property Assessment Manual.”
Joseph Hirschberg Revocable Living Trust v. City of Milwaukee, 2014 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Weissenfluh submitted an assessment report on behalf of the City in which he explained that, as chief assessor, he signs the assessment roll for each tax year as required by Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (1). 4 Weissenfluh's report, based on his individualized appraisal of College Manor,…”
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2017 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2). The burden is on Clear Channel to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the assessments here are in error.”
Bloomer Hous. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Bloomer, 2002 WI App 252 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2); Nankin, 2001 WI 92 at ¶ 25 .”
— Wis. Stat. § 70.49(1) — 4 cases
Bonstores Realty One, LLC v. City of Wauwatosa, 2013 WI App 131 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2). ¶ 8. Wisconsin Stat.”
State ex rel. Brighton Square Co. v. City of Madison, 504 N.W.2d 436 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Scott K. Matthews v. City of Madison (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Wal-Mart Real Est. Bus. Trust v. City of Berlin (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 70.49(2) — 23 cases
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. City of Delavan, 2023 WI 8 (Wis. 2023). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2) (2019-20),2 the presumption attaches upon 1 Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v.”
U.S. Oil Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “See Wis. Stat. § 70.49 (2) (2007-08). 1 Additionally, we agree with the trial court that the appropriate remedy in this case was to reinstate the initial $6 million assessments.”
Allright Props., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2009 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “The assessor's assessment " 'is presumed correct only if the challenging party does not present significant contrary evidence'" and " '[n]o presumption of correctness may be accorded to an assessment that does not apply the principles in the Property Assessment Manual.”
Veritas Vill., LLC v. City of Madison, 2023 WI App 56 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Marathon Petroleum Co. LP v. City of Milwaukee, 912 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 70.49(3) — 1 case
State ex rel. Brighton Square Co. v. City of Madison, 504 N.W.2d 436 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.