26-000726.pdf
Samuel Plaza Petitioner V City Of Trenton Respondent · 26-000726-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
CITY OF TRENTON netomne I Councilpersons: Emily Hornbeck, Mayor Pro-Tem Timber Baun-Crooks 2800 Third Street Rick Benedetti 5 — S bauata Trenton, Michigan 48183 Nelson 3 Peru Dora Rodriguez City Assessor: Joanie L. Barnett Deputy Assessor: Sydney Moya RECEIVED JUL 1.17 2076 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL July 14, 2026 Michigan Tax Tribunal Attn: Samantha M. Welton, Chief Clerk P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 RE: MTT Docket No. 26-000726 Dear Ms. Welton, Enclosed, please find the Respondent City of Trenton’s Answer to Petition; Property Tax Appeal Form — Valuation/Uncapping, together with Attachment A and all exhibits thereto, and the Proof of Service for Petitioner, Samuel Plaza. Sincerely, (foams Host Joanie Barnett, MAAO Assessor City of Trenton Enclosures cc: Authorized Representative for Petitioner Samuel Plaza: Vicki L. Hendrixson, Real Estate One
Page 2
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM — VALUATION / UNCAPPING MTT Docket No. 26-000726 Samuel Plaza v City of Trenton PART I — ENTRIES FOR THE TRIBUNAL’S OFFICIAL SC ANSWER FORM. The Tribunal requires respondents to answer on its official form (SC-Answer-Valuation). Enter the following in the corresponding sections of the fillable form or the e-filing fields, and attach Part IT below as Attachment A to Section 4. Section 1 — Respondent’s Contact Information Unit of Government City of Trenton Mailing Address 2800 Third Street City / State / ZIP Trenton, Michigan 48183 Telephone Number (734) 675-6810 Email Address Leave blank — service is to be made on counsel identified in Section 2. Section 2 — Respondent’s Attorney / Authorized Representative Name Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) [Firm Name Legal Consulting, PLLC Mailing Address 31000 Telegraph Road, Suite 102 City / State / ZIP Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025 Telephone Number (248) 800-6240 Email Address ab@consultingpllc.com (electronic service accepted) Section 3 — Subject Property Information Parcels contiguous/adjoining? [Not Applicable — a single parcel is at issue. PRE of 50% or more for all tax years at issue? Yes — 100% Principal Residence Exemption, effective 05/23/2024. Section 4 — Explain Your Answer to This Appeal
Page 3
the assessor’s cost-approach estimate of true cash value of $615,534. The property is a 1,706 sq. ft. brick ranch constructed in 2024 on a 0.23-acre lot, with a 1,706 total sq. ft. basement with 962 sq. ft. finished with kitchenette, egress bedroom, home theatre, & two-fixture bath with separate shower, a 541 sq. ft. attached brick garage, two fireplaces, two covered concrete porches, and additional plumbing fixtures. Petitioner has produced no appraisal, ho market data, and no comparable sales. Petitioner’s asserted basis for relief — that the home was custom built to accommodate a medical condition and to house live-in medical assistance — is not a legally cognizable basis for reducing true cash value. Tax year 2025 is not properly before the Tribunal. Section 5 — Jurisdictional Issue: S Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes — as to tax year 2026 only. No — as to tax year 2025. ‘Which Board of Review? March 2026 Board of Review (Petition No. M26-032; decision issued April 15,2026). If July/December BOR revised the assessment, did it have authority? Not applicable — no July or December Board of Review action. IWas the assessment established by clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No. Tax Commission Order? Is Petitioner appealing from a State No. Uncapping — notice date / Istatutory section Not applicable. Taxable value was not uncapped. The 2026 taxable value of $281,410 is a capped value computed under MCL 211.27a(2). Section 6 — Valuation Information Parcel Number 82 54 005 11 0002 000 Classification Real — Residential (401) Assessed Value (SEV) established $295,000 by the Board of Review ;
Page 4
Respondent’s contention of Taxable[$281,410 [Value Note: Respondent’s contentions reflect the values as reduced by the March 2026 Board of Review. The assessor’s cost-approach estimate of true cash value for 2026 is $615,534 (assessed value $307,800). Respondent expressly reserves the right to contend for the higher, cost-supported value should Petitioner proceed to hearing. See MCL 205.737(1) (Tribunal makes an independent determination of true cash value). Section 7 — Signature Signature s/ Anthony J. Bologna, Anthony J. Bologna (P72698), Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton Attachments to be filed with the Answer: Exhibit 1 — 2026 Property Record Card and Valuation Report, Parcel 82 54 005 11 0002 000. Exhibit 2 — 2026 Board of Review Decision (Petition No. M26-032), dated April 15, 2026, with Petition to Board of Review (Form 618/L-4035). Exhibit 3 — Proof of Service.
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION SAMUEL PLAZA, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000726 CITY OF TRENTON, Tribunal Judge Presiding Respondent. ATTACHMENT A TO RESPONDENT CITY OF TRENTON’S ANSWER: ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS Respondent CITY OF TRENTON, by and through its attorney, Anthony J. Bologna of Legal Consulting, PLLC, submits the following Answer to the Petition, together with its affirmative defenses and its statement of contentions of value, and states: LI. RESPONSE TO THE PETITION 1. Respondent ADMITS that it is the City of Trenton, Wayne County, Michigan, the local assessing unit responsible for assessing the subject property. 2. Respondent ADMITS that the subject property is a single parcel commonly known as 1701 Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan 48183, Parcel No. 82 54 005 11 0002 000, legally described as Lot 2, Vernon Park Subdivision, T4S R10E, L 122 P 77-78, WCR. 3. Respondent ADMITS that the subject property is classified 401 Residential and carries a 100% Principal Residence Exemption effective May 23, 2024. 4. Respondent ADMITS that Samuel J. Plaza and Christina L. Plaza are the owners of record. Respondent NOTES that Christina L. Plaza, a co-owner of record, is not named as a petitioner, and leaves Petitioner to his proofs as to standing to appeal on her behalf. 5. Respondent ADMITS that Petitioner protested the 2026 assessment before the March 2026 Board of Review (Petition No. M26-032) and that, by decision dated April 15, 2026, the Board of
Page 6
7. Respondent DENIES that the City has over-assessed the subject property. To the contrary, the March 2026 Board of Review reduced the assessment below the assessor’s cost-approach estimate of true cash value. 8. Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES the allegation that "a licensed appraiser has given value as well as a licensed Realtor," for the reason that no appraisal, valuation disclosure, market analysis, comparable sales data, or other supporting documentation was submitted with the Petition, and Respondent is therefore without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. Strict proof is demanded. 9; Respondent DENIES that the true cash value of the subject property on Tax Day (December 31, 2025) was $505,000, and DENIES that the assessed value should be $252,500 or that the taxable value should be $252,500. 10. Respondent AFFIRMATIVELY STATES that Petitioner’s own Petition to the Board of Review, dated March 12, 2026, asserted an owner’s estimate of true cash value of $480,000, while the Petition filed with this Tribunal asserts $505,000. Petitioner’s contentions of value are internally inconsistent and unsupported by any documentary evidence. 11. Respondent DENIES each and every remaining allegation of the Petition not expressly admitted herein, and demands strict proof thereof. II. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS OF VALUE 12. Respondent contends that the following values are correct for the 2026 tax year and should be affirmed: [Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value / SEV [Taxable Value 2026 $590,000 $295,000 $281,410 13. The subject property is a single-family residence of Class BC construction, built in 2024. It comprises 1,706 square feet of above-grade brick living area on a full basement with one full bath and additional two-fixture baths and separate shower, two prefabricated fireplaces; a 962 square foot finished basement recreation area including a kitchenette, an egress bedroom, a home theater, and two-fixture bath with separate shower, and a below-grade outside entrance; a 541 square foot attached brick garage; covered concrete porches of 132 and 118 square feet; and 140 square feet of wood-frame/concrete shed as land improvements. The site consists of 0.23 acres
Page 7
15. On Petitioner’s protest, the March 2026 Board of Review reduced the 2026 assessed value to $295,000, which corresponds to a true cash value of $590,000 — a reduction of $25,534 below the assessor’s cost-supported estimate. Petitioner has therefore already received relief. 16. The only sale of the subject in the record is the October 12, 2023 purchase of the vacant lot from Vernon Park, LLC for $75,000, prior to construction. That transaction is not probative of the true cash value of the completed, improved property on Tax Day 2026. 17. The 2026 taxable value of $281,410 is a capped value computed by operation of law under MCL 211.27a(2), based on the 2025 taxable value of $274,012 multiplied by the applicable inflation rate multiplier, adjusted for additions and losses. It is less than the assessed value and is therefore controlling. Taxable value is not independently reducible except to the extent the Tribunal determines a state equalized value below the capped value. III. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SPECIAL MATTERS 1. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2025. The Petition lists "2025, 2026" as the years under appeal. For residential real property, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in an assessment dispute is invoked only by the filing of a petition on or before July 31 of the tax year involved, and only where the assessment was first protested before the Board of Review. MCL 205.735a(3), (6). Petitioner did not protest the 2025 assessment before the 2025 March Board of Review, and did not file any petition with the Tribunal on or before July 31, 2025. The Board of Review decision and Form 618 petition attached to the Petition are captioned for the 2026 year of appeal only. A prior tax year is not a "subsequent tax year" that may be added under TTR 273 (R 792.10273). Tax year 2025 must be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the 2025 assessed value of $284,300 and taxable value of $274,012 are final. 2. The assessment is presumed valid and Petitioner bears the burden of proof. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing the true cash value of the property by a preponderance of the evidence. MCL 205.737(3). The Tribunal must make an independent determination of true cash value, and may not simply adopt a party’s figure; but where a petitioner fails to carry its burden, the Tribunal may affirm the assessment as determined by the Board of Review. Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379, 389-390 (1998); President Inn Props, LLC v City of Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625, 631 (2011). Petitioner has offered no appraisal, no valuation disclosure, no
Page 8
5 and a willing seller. MCL 211.27(1); Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485 (1991). The owner’s personal circumstances, subjective motivation for building, medical condition, or intended use of the improvements are not measures of market value and do not reduce true cash value. To the extent Petitioner intends to claim functional obsolescence or superadequacy arising from custom features, that claim must be quantified by market evidence, which Petitioner has not supplied. Valuation is determined as of Tax Day. True cash value is determined as of December 31 immediately preceding the tax year at issue — here, December 31, 2025 for the 2026 tax year. MCL 211.2(2). Any opinion of value as of a later date, including any 2026 broker price opinion or listing analysis, is not probative of value on Tax Day. Cost approach is an accepted method of valuation for recently constructed, custom improvements. The three traditional approaches to value are the cost-less-depreciation approach, the sales- comparison approach, and the capitalization-of-income approach. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348, 353 (1992). Where, as here, the improvements were newly constructed in 2024 and are custom in nature, the cost-less-depreciation approach as adjusted by a locally derived economic condition factor is a reliable and appropriate indicator of true cash value, and is consistent with the State Tax Commission Assessor’s Manual. Petitioner is in default. By Order of Default entered June 24, 2026, the Tribunal held Petitioner in default for failure to submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, as required by TTR 279 (R 792.10279), and ordered Petitioner to cure the default within 14 days. Respondent reserves the right to move for dismissal in the event the default is not properly and timely cured. Reservation as to evidence and valuation disclosure. Respondent objects to, and reserves all objections to, the admission of any appraisal, comparative market analysis, broker price opinion, or other valuation evidence that is not filed with the Tribunal and served on Respondent at least 21 days before the scheduled hearing, as required by TTR 289 (R 792.10289). Reservation of the higher, cost-supported value.
Page 9
10. Constitutional and statutory ceiling. The assessment of $295,000 does not exceed 50% of the property’s true cash value and therefore complies with Const 1963, art 9, § 3 and MCL 211.27a. Reservation of additional defenses. Respondent reserves the right to amend this Answer and to assert such further affirmative defenses as may become known through the exchange of evidence, hearing, or further investigation, and to file such motions as may be appropriate, including a motion for summary disposition or a motion to dismiss. IV. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Trenton respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: a. b. DISMISS tax year 2025 from this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; AFFIRM the 2026 true cash value of $590,000, assessed value / state equalized value of $295,000, and taxable value of $281,410, as established by the March 2026 Board of Review; DENY Petitioner’s requested reduction in true cash value, assessed value, and taxable value; In the alternative, DETERMINE the 2026 true cash value of the subject property in an amount up to $615,534, with a corresponding assessed value of $307,800, as supported by the assessor’s cost-less-depreciation analysis; and GRANT such other and further relief as the Tribunal deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, LEGAL CONSULTING, PLLC By: /s/ Anthony J. Bologna Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton 31000 Telegraph Road, Suite 102 Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Page 10
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION SAMUEL PLAZA, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000726 CITY OF TRENTON, Tribunal Judge Presiding Respondent. / PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the date set forth below, a copy of Respondent City of Trenton’s Answer to Petition (Property Tax Appeal Answer Form — Valuation/Uncapping), together with Attachment A and all exhibits thereto, was served upon the following, at the address on file with the Tribunal, by first-class mail and by electronic mail: Vicki L. Hendrixson Real Estate One One Heritage Place Southgate, Michigan 48195 jhp9118@msn.com Authorized Representative for Petitioner Samuel Plaza I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Anthony J. Bologna Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) Legal Consulting, PLLC Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton Dated: July 14, 2026
Page 11
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION SAMUEL PLAZA, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION M MTT Docket No. 26-000726 CITY OF TRENTON, Respondent. / RESPONDENT CITY OF TRENTON’S EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ITS ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent City of Trenton, by and through its attorney, Anthony J. Bologna of Legal Consulting, PLLC, submits the following exhibits in support of its Answer to the Petition filed in the above-captioned matter. The exhibits are Bates-numbered RESP-0001 through RESP-0007. INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Description Bates Range 1 2026 Property Record Card and Valuation Report, Parcel No. 82 54 005 1 | RESP-0001 — 0002 000, 1701 Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan (City of Trenton RESP-0005 Assessing Department) 2 2026 Board of Review Decision, Petition No. M26-032, dated April 15, RESP-0006 — 2026, with Petitioners Petition to Board of Review (Form 618 /1.-4035), | RESP-0007 dated March 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted, LEGAL CONSULTING, PLLC By: /s/ Anthony J. Bologna
Page 12
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION Samuel Plaza v City of Trenton | MTT Docket No. 26-000726 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT 1 2026 Property Record Card and Valuation Report Parcel No. 82 54 005 11 0002 000 1701 Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan 48183 City of Trenton Assessing Department
Page 13
1000-dS3d xx¥P223URIEND J0U ING STURT[SI P 2198°‘6 00Z’'11 0 00Z’1T £202 ” ” T T ; " T AY TEDEYd $20Z/62/0T €10 JO A3uUnod S00€’ET W00E'ET ! 00€’€ET 0 00€€T 7202 mame NWT $202/£2/70 910 "6002 - 666T 0Z10°9L2 00€’782 008’672 005’¥%€ | Sz0oz ¥ 30 Q¥V0d 920Z/81/€0 10 201% ‘182 [R000 ‘562 008°L0€ 007 ‘ILE 00v’9¢ 920z| 3EUM usuM oum antep I3Y30 | maTADY antrea antTea anTeA sTqexer /TRUNGTIL [JO paeog pessassy putpTINg pueT TeRR UTBTd POOTd pueT3an autary AUOIFIDIEM puog papoom duress padeospueT ubTH MoT putTTON Teas x | FS OL 000 T | ane QTIED ‘ | : INZ¥Yd ‘9ECY 30 Aydeabodog -STT20 punoabaspun ‘SHOO¥HIY S3TITTTIN pIepuels | ONY SSHYOE s3ubTT 2993315 Xx | INIWISYE NOII qIny x | ESNOH ALS se9| X 51730973 X Ol dELOTE¥ L219 = SnTeA Use) oni S3juswesoIdwI pPueT Pe3IPWTIST Te30L zemas X LzT’9 s6 01 L0°9% *ouoD/euUeII Poo Er Be anTep ysed POOH § BZTS 23ey uotadraosag HTEeMOPTS | X S$8312WTIST 3S0D JusweacIdwI pueT Foes paas| X PST6L PROY PRARE| X | gpg NOISIAIQE | oeszL = enTeA PUB ‘3SE TEIOL SOIOY TEIOL £270 ‘3993 IUOII TENIOY ZL aon mare 098’zL 00T 92T0T 0000°T 0000°T €0°EPT TO TL QYYANYLS antes uoseay °[pys s3ey yadeg 3uozy vyadag 2beauoig uotadTaosaq s3uswasozdur x SI030®I « orTand 6-5 d NOSYEANY 9000%°9000% STqel PUeT I0J SIIBWTISE d0TeA PueT jueces | pesoadwr| X " T PE - J IITAHOD °§ ¥1200-7224| §202/ST/LO ONINOZ T8709% ¥dL/ADL PES’STO ADL 258 5202 oF IETIR0D °§| TEE00-%23d| $20Z/ST/LO TYOI¥LOETE | S00 ‘# JY, IITIR0D "S| 60T00-y2dd| 5202/9T/LO ONIEHNTE ¥202/€2/50 %00T "E°¥°d 1ITER0D °S §6200-%2ZWd| $202/9T/LO | TYDINYHOER STOOHOS 2I7€0d NOINIYL :TOOUDS sn3e3s| Taqumy| ?3eq | (s)3twxag burpIIng :BUTUOZ AC¥AWI-TYIINIQISIY :SSBTD 0°00T | Jakcic (ef) TSLLITEZOT HIONIT S.W¥Y-£0] ¥id| €202/2T/0T 000°SL [ISI¥HD 3 "L TIOWYS ‘VZV |-suexg | Ag| shea 3 sdAz| 38a |eoTaa | *3udag | poTITIAA| 29qTT| 9Tes jo suzag *3sur| aTes ates @93ue1 9202/62/90 uo pa3uUTIg INAYM :A3unod NOINZMLI 0 ALID :UOTIDIPSTINL 000 2000
Page 14
2000-dS3d xxxP953uRIEND JOU INQ STYRTTSI P A | LyS‘9€s PADI <= OFT'T (NOSYEANY $000%) I0F | sue paizo :s330N ss9’o0Ly TEV ‘SEY iSTR30L i Hat i 3zoddng 2001 ToL’9 $S0°L BLE LINQ TYNOILIAAY a = SWe3I 3SOD SVeTI-UT-3TUR is es bo RE ac FATAL . ES 20074 cll gERL 2 — Saverdazs Tron 39308 | (ooo ntyre i Ismas OT ma AMOS PITA) T as BUTA Tv6'1 ¥70°2 1 I z83eM OTTANG| T FE Zv6°'T P50°2 1 I93BM OTTANd - ) Js TY | Jemss/adzey FOROS) 2S (FT YSTUT3 juswas 995 p- 908 7- 1 TIEM T *TTEA UOUMOYH ued usp 30073 83935 TET'6E Z6T'1¥ 58 3s0D ased SA0DTY qn OTWeIs) pooy paie (PRUSTUTIUN) UYOUI Zp UOTIBPUNOZ YOTIAG 1I0TA9IXT DE SSID | surey STL OTWEIdD su $9b2I®9 | z0013 oTTL OTWEISD *ou0) paI 6LS'Y 0z8‘% 811 (Az03s IT) d00 zemoys s3exedes z Ho0Tg -o $80°S €se’s 2ET (Az038 T) add JUTS BIIXE sayox0d 39TTOL BIE juswes 6157S 0187S z zomoys o3eredes futqumrd ON 0€T’6 1196 z yleg 9IMIXTI 7 JesH 793M ZRTOS 0°0 :sastor 03 i butqumtg Tenuey ‘Isusizos 4 Ss Sv6‘€ €ST'¥ SpeIH MOTE ‘SOUBIIUZ SPTSINO ‘Iuswaseg o3ny ‘I8us1I0S | gS 0 L199 18082 296 wooy uoT3esIDSY yjeg 8ININTI Z 2 “I'S 90LI :3 $3UBWISNLPY/SUOTITPPY I3Y30 y3eg 2In3IXTI £1 uoTaeARO 6ZT/€9¢€ €ve’z8¢ :Te3ol (s)2anaxtd sbHexsay | 90L’T Juswsseq ¥oTIg Az035 T putquUnTad (£1) 3so0) -zdaqg MBN 3S0D ZT uoT3EepUNOI IOTIRIXET S8T1303§ = seaxy burping | Ms, *9AY| X | AueR ¥ TPTERg 2 $6/00T/00T/00T/56=PO0D § ~qUOD/UODE/ouUnd/Aud-q¥/Aud $38T3N0 "D9TE IO "ON ‘3S 90LT = BOIY I00TI JIS 90LT = ©SIY Puno - re sBuTTI 1000 3 1e9H padIod :WelsAS Buriesy (TT) UTR PIO X xg | vz0z 318 og STO X¥0IS 00°T ATTwes outs T :5pTE "SOW 207 "3ST 3SOD | saan3XTJ FO “TEND/°ON wa31skg A3tanoss 201A sduy | T z009 7 a | umnoep Teajus) £oTY 230378) pollo Hens xq Tobe 203080WOD yseIL SREORTE [aD sa00 0PT°T X euneg dorUINI PoOOM . Jl *2°H| X |PTTOS iobezes yuwsd| -avd°a TERCSER § foN ere ga obuey uesa1d ITeS ITY TeIU3D 2 PIL 0 :X00TJ "DUD ON. isby coorzm| ODOUR paepueig Butroon/butsesy on | LLTWS p30 S :8by IIE | 2ARMOZOTH E : 0 :esay abexols 2g :sseTd : dumg 3esy $319S0TD 0 :pood g EE —— a EE uL40 To0D % 3BSY PIVIOI X 156 :eeIY $9 pejueA-3033Ta) | qui Tdex Tzznoer soeuUINI T00TI/TTEM UTR PIO 0 $3000 “UDSR | 22035 poom| gi Tzznoep z332H °0dsS UoT38I009Q 0 :sz00Q -oO3NY Y3TBSH PISTRY WORABIUT BSH TTeM OTII03TE 1¢ PIYSTUTI | I03eTNDITD BSH POOH Pp33u3A (I00T3-UT) 3uURTpPRY 931 PooM pa Youl Zp :UOTIRPUNOT Kz03s 7 qezaag POOH pa3uaun quetpey -TTe) -0°TF I93seTd TT ITEM T :TTEM UOWWOD A038 T geIeId qnl 30H parogeseg 0TI3OSTI z0TI0 0 :-usp aUOIS £1031§ Z I0TISIXE| ued USA 25388 0H PoOI0F T $9 Azo z0TI93X | 183®8H yieq . go chelaton [ 38 L heist OMT | | Tesodstg sbeqaes et C0 ph pe Bueyzas0 I3Y wr 56 1sse1n (£2038 T) 400 8TT ¥oeas sues /puz zaysenysTq 3nd of PEP bueyzeao 3u :R3toede)d ep (2038 1) ddzer Az03g gz z0TIDIUI dog 300) | wea3s| | TE0D poom Food $20Z 31g 109%) odAg esay | A303 T I0TISIUL moTTy eouetTddy| 0°13 | 110] ses) x | HanGTise sbexes (LT) | sydeg/seyoxod (9T) seoerdertd (ST) sur-37Tng (ST) buttoop/butiesy (11) (r3uod) go 9202/62/90 uo pLa3uTag 000 2000 TIT S00 ¥S 28 :Ia3quuN TeoIRd
Page 15
£000-dS3Y s»xPB33URIEND 30U INQ STARTISI Se—— LP oi 4990 @} 1S TEL oz : 0 gel io R=] PS 1SEALS | S 5 EQ0LL 041 ET : ST 5 400 be = ssl HS TR RE J El 06 Zi oe on io «© « - sbeieg in 150% 0€C 10 SINULY LOZL 9202/62/90 uo pRIUTII 1 BUTPTING TeTIUSPTSSY ‘000 2000
Page 16
06/29/2026 Valuation Report 02:13 PM Trenton 2026 82 54 005 11 0002 000 2026 Est. T.C.V. PLAZA, SAMUEL J. Property Class: 401 1701 ARTHURS CT Map #: 005 CITY OF TRENTON TRENTON, MI 48183 & CHRISTINA L. *13Y2* LOT 2 VERNON PARK SUBDIVISION T4S R10E L 122 P 77-78 WCR K = 79.54 2026 MBOR: ASSESSED VALUE CORRECTED TO MARKET VALUE 2025 - ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 STY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, RECREATION BASEMENT WITH KITCHENETTE BEDROOM WITH EGRESS AND MOVIE THEATER LIVING ROOM, BATHROOMS, FIREPLACES, PORCHES, & SHED Land Value Estimates for Land Table 40006.40006 ANDERSON P 5-9 * Factors * Description Frontage Depth Front Depth Rate %Adj. Reason Value STANDARD 71.01 143.03 1.0000 1.0000 1026 100 72,860 72 Actual Front Feet, 0.23 Total Acres Total Est. Land Value = 72,860 Land Improvement Cost Estimates Description Rate Size % Good Cash Value Wood Frame/Conc. 46.07 140 6,127 Total Estimated Land Improvements True Cash Value 6,127 Cost Est. for Res. Bldg: 1 Single Family 1.00 STORY Cls BC Blt 2024 (11) Heating System: Forced Heat & Cool Ground Area = 1706 SF Floor Area = 1706 SF. Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. % Good=95/100/100/100/95 Building Areas Stories Exterior Foundation Size Cost New 1 Story Brick Basement 1,706 Total: 382,243 Other Additions/Adjustments Recreation Room 962 28,081 Basement, Outside Entrance, Below Grade 1 4,153 Plumbing 2 Fixture Bath 2 9,611 Separate Shower 2 5,810 Porches CCP (1 Story) 132 5,353 ccp (1 Story) 118 4,820 Garages Class: BC Exterior: Brick Foundation: 42 Inch (Unfinished) Base Cost 541 41,192 Common Wall: 1 Wall 1 -4,806 Depr. Cost 363,129 26,677 3,945 9,130 5,519 5,085 4,579 39,132 -4,566
Page 17
06/29/2026 Valuation Report 02:13 PM DB: Trenton 2026 Parcel Number: 82 54 005 11 0002 000 Page: 2 ECF (40006 ANDERSON) 1.140 => TCV: 536,547 2026 Est. T.C.V. 54 005 11 0002 000 = 615,534 Est. TCV/Total Floor Area = 360.81, Most recent sale 10/12/2023 for 75,000 2025 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Base for Cap IRM 284,300 284,300 284,300 274,012 2.70 2026 New Eq. Adjustment Loss Additions Tax Adjustment Losses 0 10,700 0 0 7,398 0 2026 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Capped ->Taxable<- PRE/MBT 307,800 295,000 295,000 281,410 281,410 281,410
Page 18
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION Samuel Plaza v City of Trenton | MTT Docket No. 26-000726 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT 2 2026 Board of Review Decision Petition No. M26-032 | Issued April 15, 2026 with Petitioner’s Petition to Board of Review (Michigan Dep't of Treasury Form 618 / L-4035), dated March 12, 2026
Page 19
2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION FROM 4/15/2026 JOANIE L. BARNETT PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ASSESSOR, CITY OF TRENTON (Parcel Code required. Property address & legal description optional) ee ee 82 54 005 110002 000 ’ 1701 ARTHURS CT NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: *13Y2* LOT 2 VERNON PARK SUBDIVISION T4S RIOE L 122 P 77 PLAZA, SAMUEL J. & CHRISTINA L. -78 WCRK = 79.54 1701 ARTHURS CT. TRENTON MI 48183 THIS PROPERTY ISCLASSIFIED AS: 401 Residential Petition # M26-032 Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary to compute your assessment and taxable value. The Board has completed their review of parcel number 82 54 005 11 0002 000 They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. Board of Review Comments: ASSESSED VALUE CORRECTED TO MARKET VALUE | 2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 307,800 [ 2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 295,000 | (If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 2026 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 281,410 | 2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 281,410 | (If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 2026 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG % 100.0000 1] Please feel free to contact the Assessor if you have any questions. Assessor's Office (734)675-6810 If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review, all further appeals may be made to the Michigan Tax Tribunal
Page 20
Michigan Department of Treasury 618 (Rov. 12-25) 4 Petition to Board of Review Petition # (20-032) 400s This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however, you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal unless you first protest to the Board of Review, except when the property is classified as commercial real, industrial real, or developmental real. You may not appeal property classifications to the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review. TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT Owner's Name (Please Print or Ty Pelitioner's Name (If Other than Owner) PLAZA, SAMUEL J. & CHRISTINA L. Township or City County Year of Appeal CITY OF TRENTON WAYNE 2026 The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified agricultural property exemption of the following described property: Parcel Number Property Address 54 005 11 0002 000 1701 ARTHURS CT Protested Item: & Assessed Value [J Taxable Status (exemption) [J Tentative Taxable Value [J Classification [J Qualifed Agricultural Property Exemption 1, PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT Complete this section for a protest of assessed value, including assessed value changes associated with exempt status and denied or late filed personal property forms. Assessed Value Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value (Full Market Value) . 5 oD 2, PROTEST OF TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE Complete this section for a protest of Taxable Value. Reason: [] Value of Losses [J] Value of Additions [CJ Poverty Exemption [J Uncapping % 3. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in accordance with Section 211.34c of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property. Fa Classification of property on this year's assessment roll: 401 Residential Classification Requested: (Please check one of the followin [J Agricultural [J Industrial [CI Timber Cutover [1 Utility (Personal Property Only) [1 Commercial [] Residential [1 Developmental 4. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EN i % Sa ERIE Ifthe assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operaling tax for qualified agricultural property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. The Board of Review has no authority to consider or or act upon the exemption from the 18 School Operating Mills for Homeowner's Principal Residence properites. Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor: (Enter 0 if exemption is denied) Percent qualified agricullural exemption requested by Owner: (Enter 100 if full exemption requested) REASON FOR PROTEST State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or taxable status I ex We agricultural property exemptiop. N ) 5 ex) ( THI HIVE CALAN Oo oll TL fie 2 ian Ya
Page 21
4 TRENTON Assessor's Office Joanie Barnett, City Assessor 2800 Third Street Trenton, MI 48183 Peasy Michigan Tax Tribunal Attn: Samantha M. Welton P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 FIRST-CLASS TIBI BIR 2 11B IE IAL 48909 E ZIP 48183 "$0.00 R2305K140963-98 Zrasies § 002,560 0006164211 JUL 14 2026
Page 22
geog ‘vi Nr I I ester 1 'NOLNIHL IHN el avd 30V180d '§'N /ejed