MTT Docekt No 26 002264.pdf
Stacy L Silk Petitioner V City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-002264-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
Petitioner: Stacy Silk Property: 7409 2nd Ave., G3-23, Detroit, MI 48202 Parcel ID: 04001592.023 MTT Docket No: 26-002264 Hearing Type: Small Claims Division Purpose: Demonstrate true cash value through comparable sales, building condition and marketability impairment Exhibit 1 – Comparable Sales Analysis 1A. Active Listing in my building - $139,999 (758 sq ft) • Larger than subject property (694 sq ft) • Has not sold at $139,999 • Demonstrates market resistance below City’s valuation • Supports a lower true cash value for subject property 1B. Renovated First-Floor Sale in my building – $150,000 (May 2026) • Larger than subject property (694 sq ft) • Fully renovated bathroom (floor to ceiling) • Refinished hardwood floors • First-floor accessibility • Sold for only $4,000 above City’s valuation of subject property 1C. Subject Property – Arm’s Length Purchase $133,000 (2024) • Purchased under normal market conditions • Conventional financing available at the time • Building condition has worsened since purchase • Now potentially unwarrantable → cash only → lower value 1D. Neighborhood Comps 48202 One Bedrooms ($95K - $125K) • Typical sales range aligns with $110K - $125K • Subject property’s condition places it below typical neighborhood units Exhibit 2 – Building Condition and Deferred Maintenance
Page 2
These exhibits document objective deterioration that materially reduces market value and supports unwarrantable status. 2A. Exterior Structural Damage • Deteriorated brickwork • Weathered balcony structures • Crumbling mortar
Page 3
2B. Broken Window Glass • Cracked and broken pane • Safety hazard • Evidence of poor maintenance
Page 4
2C. Misaligned / Clogged Downspout • Bent and improperly installed • Improper drainage → foundation risk → water damage in my unit
Page 5
\~ Ele == =r I == xt iin 1 = = \h\ | = =r \\ \\\ 4 Teel 0 = \ |: TT Jr = rly = LST is = — = tee So Easels za, =o — bm To Zan =, IT = Toe gh Eo ge 0 ca wf =e =T dm 1 ves = mony TI — St Eo So se] Ey Sol — 2 gn oe = = == Sel wn a = Sie =F =T R\ Eo = ar = a3 =r i se Neat =T fo = 23g 1 = “4 ama SEA ne Se— —— ETE i T FES) es BE) EXD § - cn Ci (es Fr a Gm RE J. a P— BS BS Fa 25: £3 oo i EEE CT i news | — — — I= = —_— = ——— — — = — =—————— — — ” 7 — es se £7 po 5 go hs Fas Lia
Page 6
2D. Neglected Exterior Stairwells • Dirt, debris and long-term neglect • Unsafe access with rotting stairs • Bird excrement all along the walls and landings
Page 7
Pe. 1] fe od ~ = . ho y pb} he
Page 8
Ld A . F-3 i% ee © Fe i & Hoel) X > at id] | Fas 23 Lo ™ 3 Red 3 ie Sg . bg — (> 3 —_—
Page 9
2E. Crawlspaces Filled with Debris • Wood scraps, hoses, trash • Moisture and pest risk
Page 10
2F. Landscaping Neglect & Dead Shrubs • Dead or dying shrubs • Abandoned pots • Patchy weed filled grass
Page 11
2G. Unit Wear and Non-Standard Modifications • Water damaged flooring transitions (was like this when I purchased it) • Pet door Installation in modified closet door (was like this when I purchased it)
Page 12
• Inferior condition compared to comps
Page 13
A i Cod i Eo a Pals a x (hs i Fri 1 wh | VL 2 [ite Hi NEY) 1 il iH il Ii Ii | § 7 Bl ?
Page 14
Exhibit 3 – Marketability Impairment (Unwarrantable Status) Evidence • Property manager’s admission of potential unwarrantable status • Deferred maintenance throughout building • Structural Issues • Electrical Concerns • Unsafe access areas (both parking and alley gates are broken) • Cash-only buyer pool → Lower value
Page 15
2:45 CIERD © 0 = N20 @ & 0) Farrah Propert.. [Oh Rg the budget is funded. The delinquent accounts show up on the balance sheet as accounts receivable, not as a detriment to the budget. | will take a look at your spreadsheet and see what | can do to update it so that it is compliant. | will also prepare a letter that you can send to the co-owners about the increase... Read more 12:48 AM V/ Hey Stacy, thank you for doing so. Looking forward to seeing the quote for landscaping. For the budget, it sounds like we're going to $100/month either way in some way whether it’s this year or next year. My biggest anxiety is the deficit so we don't end up being unwarranted from a lender perspective. However we get there I'm okay with 12:52 AM
Page 16
(l ll ey a EN 7 yy ¥ 9) B " JEN — Ei] wd 48 Sh ~3/ os 4] ri vo, ¥
Page 17
Why it matters Michigan law defines true cash value as the price a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to under normal market conditions. A building that cannot be financed under normal conditions cannot achieve normal market value. Exhibit 4 – HOA Governance & Maintenance Failures Evidence • Neglected common areas • Landscaping failures • Structural deterioration • Safety issues – both the parking log gate and alley gate are accessible to non- owners • Non-funding of annual reserve requirements of 10% of total budget Why it matters Governance dysfunction reduces buyer confidence and contributes to unwarrantable status, directly lowering true cash value. Exhibit 5 – Supported Value Conclusion Supported True Cash Value Range: $110,000 - $125,000 This range is consistent with: • $133K arm’s length purchase • Larger unit failing to sell at $139,999 • Renovated / larger first floor unit selling at $150K • Neighborhood comps • Building disrepair • Potential unwarrantable status • HOA governance issues (Property Manager is also the self-appointed President of the HOA…she approves her own payments)
Page 18
This page is blank in the source PDF.