## Facts

- Milwaukee County planned an airport expansion that required acquiring nearby properties, including Gloria and Leroy Pinczkowski’s parcel.
- The property included a residence on industrial-zoned land; the residential use was nonconforming.
- The County initially pursued acquisition by negotiation and calculated a possible replacement-housing payment using its valuation of the dwelling component and the cost of a comparable replacement home; Pinczkowski rejected the offer.
- On November 10, 2000, the County condemned the property and paid $350,000 as just compensation via an award of damages.
- In the valuation trial, Pinczkowski sought to admit (1) sale prices of two adjacent parcels sold to the County for the same airport project and (2) a non-binding letter of intent from Hertz expressing interest in buying the property at a stated price.
- The circuit court excluded both the adjacent-sales prices and the letter of intent, and it denied Pinczkowski a replacement-housing payment under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(4)(a).
- A jury found fair market value of $285,000, below the County’s $350,000 payment.
- Pinczkowski appealed; the court of appeals affirmed, and the state supreme court later affirmed the same results.

## Issues

1. Whether sale prices of adjacent properties sold to the condemning authority for the same public project are admissible as comparable-sales evidence of fair market value.
2. Whether a prospective buyer’s letter of intent is admissible as evidence of fair market value in a condemnation valuation trial.
3. Whether the owner was entitled to a replacement-housing payment under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(4)(a) despite an agency determination denying eligibility.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- It held that the adjacent-property sale prices were inadmissible because they were sales to the condemning authority during acquisition for the same public project.
- It held that the Hertz letter of intent was inadmissible as proof of fair market value.
- It upheld the denial of a replacement-housing payment under § 32.19(4)(a), based on the statutory formula as applied by the administering agency.

## Legal Principles

- Comparable-sales evidence generally excludes sales to a condemning authority undertaken as part of the same public project, because such transactions may reflect condemnation-related pressures rather than ordinary market conditions.
- A non-binding letter of intent from a prospective purchaser is not competent evidence of fair market value in condemnation proceedings because it is speculative and contingent.
- Replacement-housing payments under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(4)(a) are governed by the statutory formula and implementing administration; courts may uphold an agency’s reasonable application and interpretation of the governing provisions when determining eligibility.

## Conclusion

The court sustained evidentiary exclusions that limited valuation proof to market-based, non-speculative evidence and affirmed the denial of statutory relocation benefits, leaving the condemnation award and judgment intact.


Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee Cnty., 687 N.W.2d 791 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)