Raincheck POS.pdf
Raincheck Development LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-000896-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL RAINCHECK DEVELOPMENT LLC, Petitioner, 2 MTT Docket # 26-000896 CITY OF DETROIT, Respondent. PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OAKLAND) ‘ Aaron M. Fales, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on August (gz , 2026 he served a copy of Petitioner's Petition on the parties named on the attached list. Aaron M. Fales
Page 2
BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: CLERK DETROIT 804 CAYMC, 2 WOODWARD AVENUE DETROIT, Mi 48226 ASSESSOR DETROIT 804 CAYMC, 2 WOODWARD AVENUE DETROIT, MI 48226 AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: CLERK . WAYNE COUNTY CAYMC, 2 WOODWARD AVENUE #211 DETROIT, MI 48226 DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION WAYNE COUNTY 500 GRISWOLD ST. 21ST FLOOR DETROIT, Mi 48226 SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7321 2ND AVENUE, 14TH FLOOR DETROIT, Mi 48202-4050 STATE TREASURER MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY TREASURY BUILDING 430 W. ALLEGAN ST. LANSING, Mi 48922
Page 3
5) STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Raincheck Development LLC, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No.: 26-000896 City of Detroit, Respondent. NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.7354, even if the petition was served when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of the notice may result in the dismissal of this case. Under TTR 235(1), “[tlhe respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so will result in Respondent being placed in default. The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements or the Tribunal’s rules. By: Tribunal Clerk Entered: June 23, 2026 PROOF OF SERVICE | certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
RAINCHECK DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Petitioner,
MITT Docket #26-000896
vs.
Parcel No. 23031900.38F
CITY OF DETROIT,
Respondent.
PETITION
Raincheck Development
LLC
(“Petitioner”), through
its
attorneys,
Law
Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says:
1.
Petitioner's principal office address
is 28715 Greenfield, Southfield,
. MI 48076.
Petitioner is a party in interest with respect fo property taxes on real
property tax parcel no{s). 23031900.38F
("Petitioner's Property"),
at 40 Hague,
Detroit, MI, 48226.
2.
Respondent, City of Detroit assesses and collects property taxes on
Petitioner's Property.
3.
In 2026, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's
Parcel to be $529,100 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $529,100 resulting in aPage 5
4, Petitioner's Property is classified as Commercial Real Property. Petitioner's Property is a commercial property. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was designed to be used for commercial purposes. 5. This matter involves issues relating fo: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value, and (d} uniformity. 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to faxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 7. The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (fb) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constifution and applicable statutes; (c} The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash
Page 6
{d)
The
assessment,
including
state
equalized
value
and/or
taxable
value,
and
the
mode
of
assessment
adopfed
by
Respondent,
discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner
its constitutional
rights
to
uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an
Order reducing the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel from $529,100 to
$100,000, and reducing the 2026 assessed and state equalized values of
Petitioner's Property from $529,100 to $100,000, and requiring Respondent to pay
Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner
By:
yy
4
Aaron M. Fales (P72864)
330 Hamilton Row, Ste 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
(248) 767-9840
Dated:
M12
ong