24-003520 FOJ Exc.pdf
Debra Z Piper, Petitioner V Township Of Weldon, Respondent · 24-003520-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 GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 Debra Z Piper, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Weldon Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on September 10, 2025. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” On September 29, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, Petitioner states that the POJ erroneously describes Petitioner’s contentions. Petitioner does not contest that she spent $700,000 renovating the subject property. However, the remaining construction loan balance was $238,718 as of January 1, 2022. It includes two items covered under Mathieu Gast – mechanicals (plumbing, heating, electric) in the amount of $96,000, and the kitchen cabinets, which had not yet been installed, at $38,718 of the $65,000 for interior woodwork. The remaining $104,000 balance was for insulation, drywall, and completing the project. The Tribunal should allocate $34,320, or 33% of this amount, for new construction in 2022, resulting in a TV increase of $17,160 for 2023. The subject’s 2022 TV was $173,813, and the 2023 TV should be $196,709, which is the prior-year TV multiplied by 1.033 plus $17,160. The property was fully completed, and the 2024 and 2025 TV should only increase by the inflation rate, resulting in values of $206,544 for 2024 and $216,871 for 2025. Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s exceptions. The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and evidence submitted in rendering the POJ. Specifically, replacement of the mechanicals does not constitute “normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance” of that equipment under MCL 211.27(2)(h), (i), or (j), contrary to the contention in paragraph 32 of Petitioner’s affidavit and supporting documentation. The addition to the subject’s living space resulted in the expansion of the prior mechanicals into systems large enough to support the structure’s expanded square footage. Further, there cannot be “normal maintenance” when they are part of a “structural addition or completion” under the plain
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 2 of 4 language of MCL 211.27(2). Even where some components of a prior system might have been engineered into the overall design of an expanded mechanical unit, the overall reconfiguration of the entirety of the plumbing, heating, and electrical systems exceeds the scope of “normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance” allowed under statute. The POJ correctly found non-consideration is not appropriate for those improvements. Further, with respect to the claim of kitchen cabinetry described in the exceptions, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is not timely raising this contention. Neither the exceptions nor the record reflects that this contention was timely raised prior to hearing. While Petitioner did identify cabinetry as a component it sought for non-consideration under MCL 211.27(2)(o), it failed to properly identify a time component for implementation of that evidence contrary to what was presented on the Form 865 and what was set forth by the parties at hearing. The exceptions do not cite to any evidence in support of the timing component except for the general loan balance, which cannot be reasonably construed by a finder of fact to support the timing of non-consideration of cabinetry without additional evidence or testimony in support. Consideration of a new contention after the completion of the hearing is not appropriate because it deprives Respondent of its opportunity to address any contention made by a party at a hearing held to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence. The POJ therefore did not err in implementing the cabinetry in accordance with the partial construction fraction used in the TV calculation. Given the above, Petitioner failed to show good cause to justify modifying the POJ or granting a rehearing.1 As such, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this case.2 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a result: The property’s taxable value (TV), as established by the Board of Review for the tax years at issue, are as follows: Parcel Number: 12-101-004-00 Year TV 2024 $297,528 2025 $306,751 The property’s final TV, for the tax years at issue, are as follows: Parcel Number: 12-101-004-00 Year TV 2024 $261,204 2025 $269,301 1 See MCL 205.762. 2 See MCL 205.726.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 3 of 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as finally provided in this Final Opinion and Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.3 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (v) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (vi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, (vii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, and (viii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%. This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 3 See MCL 205.755.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 4 of 4 if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By _____________________________ Entered: November 14, 2025 bw/am PROOF OF SERVICE I 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 or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk