2026 Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Subsequent Tax Year (Signed).pdf
Brusin LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Midland, Respondent · 25-002478-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________________ BRUSIN, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No.: 25-002478-TT V PARCEL NO. 14-23-40-330 CITY OF MIDLAND, Respondent. SHINNERS & COOK, P.C. BY: SCOT C. PUTZIG (P77881) ANDREW J. BALZER (P82952) Attorneys for Petitioner 5195 Hampton Place Saginaw, Michigan 48604-9576 Telephone: (989) 799-5000 abalzer@shinnerscook.com BRAUN KENDRICK FINKBEINER P.L.C. BY: FRANCIS J. KEATING (P39223) Attorneys for Respondent 4301 Fashion Square Blvd. Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Telephone: (989) 498-2100 frakea@braunkendrick.com Christopher G. Komara (P61503) City Attorney/Attorney for Respondent City of Midland 333 W. Ellsworth St. Midland, Michigan 48640 (989) 837-3395 ckomara@midland-mi.org MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION NOW COMES Petitioner, BRUSIN, LLC, by and through its attorneys, SHINNERS & COOK, P.C., who hereby moves for leave to amend its Petition as follows: 1. Petitioner originally filed its Petition with this Tribunal disputing its property’s true cash value and taxable value for tax year 2024 on or about May 21, 2024. 2. The original Petition is docketed as Docket No. 24-001469-TT. 3. In February 2025, pursuant to statute, Respondent issued a 2025 Tax Assessment for Petitioner’s property. 4. Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Petition to add the 2025 tax year to Docket No. 24-001469-TT.
Page 2
2 5. The Tribunal granted Petitioner’s Motion to Amend, but severed the 2025 tax year from Docket No. 24-001469-TT at Respondent’s request. See line items 24-26 from Docket No. 24-001469-TT. 6. Petitioner’s 2025 tax year Petition is docketed in this present Docket No. 25-002478-TT. 7. The Court issued an Order placing Docket No. 25-002478-TT in abeyance on November 17, 2025, pending the resolution of Docket No. 24-001469-TT. See line item 12 from Docket No. 25-002478-TT. 8. In February 2026, pursuant to statute, Respondent issued a 2026 Tax Assessment for Petitioner’s property. 9. Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule 225(2), Rule 227(1), MCL 205.735a, and MCL 205.737(4), Petitioner is allowed to amend its Petition to include a subsequent tax year. 10. Based on the above, Petitioner requests to amend its Petition to add the 2026 tax year to the present case, Docket No. 25-002478-TT. 11. Therefore, pursuant to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend, Petitioner seeks to amend its Petition consistent with the Amended Petition attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. 12. Given Docket No. 25-002478-TT is currently being held in abeyance, Petitioner asks the Tribunal to refrain from severing the 2026 tax year from the 2025 Petition, at least as long as the current case is held in abeyance. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, BRUSIN, LLC, requests that this Honorable Tribunal enter an Order granting Petitioner permission to file and serve the Amended Petition as attached. SHINNERS & COOK, P.C. Dated: May 29, 2026 __________________________________ BY: SCOT C. PUTZIG (P77881) ANDREW J. BALZER (P82952) Attorneys for Petitioner 5195 Hampton Place Saginaw, Michigan 48604-9576 Telephone: (989) 799-5000 , ________________________
Page 3
3 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________________ BRUSIN, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No.: 24-001469 V PARCEL NO. 14-23-40-330 CITY OF MIDLAND, Respondent. SHINNERS & COOK, P.C. BY: SCOT C. PUTZIG (P77881) ANDREW J. BALZER (P82952) Attorneys for Petitioner 5195 Hampton Place Saginaw, Michigan 48604-9576 Telephone: (989) 799-5000 abalzer@shinnerscook.com BRAUN KENDRICK FINKBEINER P.L.C. BY: FRANCIS J. KEATING (P39223) Attorneys for Respondent 4301 Fashion Square Blvd. Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Telephone: (989) 498-2100 frakea@braunkendrick.com Christopher G. Komara (P61503) City Attorney/Attorney for Respondent City of Midland 333 W. Ellsworth St. Midland, Michigan 48640 (989) 837-3395 ckomara@midland-mi.org PROOF OF SERVICE I, ANDREW J. BALZER, declare that I am employed in the County of Saginaw, State of Michigan; I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 5195 Hampton Place, Saginaw, Michigan, 48604, and that the following facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: On May 29, 2026, the documents described as Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition was served upon Francis J. Keating and Christopher G. Komara via US First Class Mail and electronic mail. Dated: May 29, 2026 ____________________________________ ANDREW J. BALZER ________________________ A A
Page 4
Exhibit 1
Page 5
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 _____________________________, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. _____________________________, Respondent(s) ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 6. The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. Brusin, LLC 25-002478 City of Midland 14-23-40-330 X N/A Industrial-Improved (301)
Page 6
MTT Docket No. _________________ Page 2 of 4 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 10. The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The property or properties’ address is: 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): ________________________________________ 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): ________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values ________the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No ________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment ________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______ 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________ 25-002478 N/A N/A Midland 220 Arrow Cove Midland, Michigan 48642 City of Midland 5309 Nakoma Midland, Michigan 48640 X 2025 and 2026
Page 7
MTT Docket No. _________________ Page 3 of 4 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 25-002478 The addition of the 2026 tax year to the present Petition for 2025 is made pursuant to Petitioner's Motion to Amend to add subsequent tax year as allowed by Tax Tribunal Rule 225(2), Rule 227(1), MCL 205.735a, and MCL 205.737(4). 2025 $1,698,600 $849,300 $782,651 2026 $1,626,200 $813,100 $803,782 2025 $714,484 $357,242 $357,242 2026 $733,800 $366,900 $366,900 2025 $984,116 $492,058 $425,409 2026 $892,400 $446,200 $436,882 Petitioner requests that the assessment for the subject property be adjusted to comparable market values based on the sales comparison approach, the income approach, and the cost approach. Petitioner asks this Tax Tribunal to reduce the True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value of the subject property to reflect the values identified in Section 17 above. Petitioner further asks this Tax Tribunal to award Petitioner costs and attorney fees, because Respondent's assessment is unsupportable, invalid, and so egregious as to constitute harassment. Based on the sales comparison approach,and the income approach using a reasonable capitalization rate, the values for the subject property are in line with Petitioner's values identified in Section 17 above. It is believed Respondent relied solely on the cost approach in preparing the Assessments for the subject property, and that Respondent made improper assumptions regarding the cost approach, in valuing the subject property. Based on Respondent's failure to adequately assess the subject property, Petitioner requests the relief detailed in Section 19 above.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. _________________ Page 4 of 4 Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: ______________________________________________________________________ Printed Name of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: ______________________________________________________________________ Email Address: _________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number: _____________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Signature of Petitioner’s Au ______________________ 25-002478 Andrew J. Balzer (P82952) abalzer@shinnerscook.com 5195 Hampton Place, Saginaw, Michigan 48604 989-799-5000 May 29, 2026