25 petition.530.pdf

Jerome A Drudi, Petitioner Vs. City Of Flint, Respondent · 25-001997-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

JEROME A. DRUDI, 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET NUMBER: 

\4 

CITY OF FLINT, ASSESSING DEPARTMENT, 

Respondent. 

RICKY A. CARLSON (P32980) 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

5955 W. Main St., Ste. 621 

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49009 

(810) 424-0900 

City of Flint, Assessing Department 

1101 S. Saginaw St. 

Flint, Michigan 48507 

(810) 766-7255 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

Now Comes Petitioner, JEROME A. DRUDI, by and through his attorney, Ricky 

A. Carlson, and in support of his above styled Petition, states unto this honorabale 

tribunal as follows: 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: 41-29-228-032; 

2. 

The property identified above is 

__X___real personal property; 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

1

contiguous? 

yes ____ No. 

( If No, separate petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel. 

There is only one parcel of real property under review. 

Are all 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 under appeal.); 

There are no parcels of personal property under appeal. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional pages 

if 

necessary)? 

There are no parcels of personal property under appeal. 

The property identified above is classified COMMERCIAL; 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest 

was made to Respondent's 

March 

July 

December Board of 

Review; 

There was no protest made; 

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 pages if 

necessary); 

There was no protest made as property is classified Commercial and no 

protest is required.

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for filing of an appeal for 

the classification or classifications 

of the properties at issue (ie, 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 pages if necessary); 

The Petition is being timely submitted; 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located 

in Genesee County. The 

property address is 

: 

1320 E. Atherton Rd., Flint, Michigan 48507 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established 

by: 

CITY OF FLINT, ASSESSING DEPARTMENT, 

12. 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

JEROME A. DRUDI 

6035 Brookstone Ln., 

Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439 

13. 

This appeal involves issues related to the (check all that are applicable): 

___ XXXX_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 additionorloss 

? 

Yes No__ ; 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

the property or properties’ exemption from ad valorem 

taxation under MCL __ 

14. 

The tax year (s) at issue are: ___ 2024 

; 

3

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed 

, list the separate and 

specific facts upon which the Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal's 

authority over the prior years (attach additional page if necessary); 

16. 

Not applicable ; only tax year 2024 is being appealed.; 

The values for the property identified above as established by th 

Respondent's Board of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2024 

17. 

$671,800.00 

$355,900.00 

$327,045.00 

Petitioner contends the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2024 

18. 

$290,000.00 

$145,000.00 

$145,000.00 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2024 

19. 

$381,800.00 

$190,900.00 

$182,045.00 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional pages if 

necessary); 

20. 

2024 Tax Year True Cash Value, Assessed Value and Taxable Value for 

the property as described above and under appeal be adjusted to 

Petitioner's contentions and any all overpayments be ordered forthwith 

refunded to Petitioner together with any all applicable interest, costs and 

fees to which this Tribunal should find Petitioner to be entitles; 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support 

the relief requested (attach additional pages if necessary): 

4

Petitioner purchased the property located in a depressed and blighted 

area in 2018 for a total purchase price of $150,000.00. The Respondent placed 

the following values on the property in 2018: ($638,200.00 — True Cash Value) 

($319,100.00-SEV) and ($251,825.00 — Taxable Value). Petitioner appealed and 

at the request of Respondent, agreed to compromise and resolve the appeal by 

stipulation to an SEV and Taxable Value of $145,000.00 (nearly 100 percent of 

the actual Purchase Price/True Cash Value at the time). The Respondent then in 

bad faith and disrespect for the Tribunal’s approval of the stipulation by entry of a 

Consent Judgment, before the ink was dry on the CJ, immediately raised all of 

the values for this property back up significantly for the taxable year 2019 and all 

subsequent years thereafter,; The Petitioner contends that the area in which the 

property is located remains at least as much, and likely more, depressed and 

blighted as when he first purchased it significantly reducing the marketability and 

therefore taxable values associated with the property. Nevertheless, Petitioner 

will stand by his prior agreement submitted to this Tribunal of an SEV of 

$145,000.00. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

(Gs 

Ricky A. Carlson 

Attorney for Petitioner 

Date: May 30, 2026 

RAC/fsc

← View full record