13-019-001-31 Tax Tribunal for Aaron 2026.pdf
Aaron C Jones, Petitioner V Township Of Lake, Respondent · 24-003727-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
Mi Tribunal reply 2025 – AARON In response to our 2024 spring Board of Review request being denied I find it necessary thus to appeal to the M.T.T for assistence. I have the following issues of contention via property tax values for the below property in Lake Township of Lake County Michigan..... Parcel 43-13-019-001-31 Per my Tribunal request I have the following issues concerning the 2024 – 2026 property taxes levied: 1). Illegally charging a “lake frontage” cost. 2). A miss-classification of building construction classification 3). Miscalculations on the building value 3/17/2023, 10/23/24, 3/03/25 + 2/26/2026 property cards provided via FOIA 4). Incorrect adjustments for depreciation of cabin + tool shed. 5). Incorrect application of ECF per well and septic system. Furthermore, the following items are of concern to petitioner as to arriving at a “fair” TCV (market value): 1) An adjustment (LOSS) for Unskilled Labor deduction per low quality owner built, recreational, farm cabin 2) An adjustment (LOSS) for the neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation based on the highly used easement road running through the center of the entire 20 acres. I used the following abbreaviations within this request: COA – Court of Appeals MSC – Michigan Supreme Court G.B.A. -- Michigan State Tax Comm. "Guide to Basic Assessing" T.A. -- Tax Assessor M.A.M. -- Michigan Assessor's Manual's (2014 ed. (with 2024 updates) for 2024) (2025 ed for 2025 and 2026) B.O.R. -- Township Board of Review S.T.C -- Michigan State Tax Comm. A.V. -- Assessed Value T.V. -- Taxable Value T.C.V. -- True Cash Value C.M. -- County Multiplier
Page 2
ISSUE #1 (charging “Lake Frontage” values) per M.A.M. Volume III (published 2018 page 11) “When real estate is transacted, it is the legal description that uniquely describes and identifies the property involved in the transaction. It is not sufficient to rely merely on an address or property identification number for this purpose. Your property ownership is “legally” identified by the legal description on your deed.” per online search “Michigan property assessments and taxes rely on several distinct rules” i.e.:.....“Direct Ownership: You are only taxed on the specific parcel of land defined by your official property deed and legal boundaries. If the pond is entirely on your neighbor's land, its assessed value remains with their parcel.” Per legal titles this property (Parcel 43-13-019-001-31) does NOT own any part of the property which contains Gillians Springs thus it has NO pond (lake) frontage. This property abuts another owners property which includes an approx 17acre man made pond. According to documents held at the Lake Township Register of Deeds office the 17 acres which comprise Gillians Springs was part of a 160 acre propety which was sold in 1978 to a private individual(s). That owner then, in late1978, proceeded to survey and sell off certain sections of the 160 acres for the next few yrs. He held ... AND continues to hold... ownership of the 17 acres under the man made artificial pond called “Gillians Springs” (or Mohlers Pond). (Per County records at R.O.Deeds office) Our registered deeds clearly show the surveyed lines of each parcel. None of them include land under the body of water as that land was, and remains, in private hands. Lake County records continue to show that this 17.39 acres has a clear unbroken line of ownership since 1961 when Dale Mohler purchased several properties and combined them into one parcel. At that time there was NO body of water and Gillians Springs is listed on the 1961 MSU water lands of Lake County as being only wetlands springs of one tenth of an acre. In 1964 Mr. Mohler built an unlicensed artificial farm pond dam (known locally as Mohlers Pond) and created what is currently known as Gillians Springs for use in his farm operations. Upon later becoming ill Mr. Mohler sold the deeded property (as recorded at the Lake County Register of Deeds) in it's entirety (which included all land around and beneath Gillians Springs). As Gillians Springs (Mohlers Pond) was a man-made artificial pond built in the early 60's none of the land owners surrounding the privitally owned land (UNDER GILLIANS SPRINGS) containing said pond hold Ripiarian rights within the pond as per multiple Mich case summery's : COA 2014 No. 308454 Oakland Circuit Court, LC No. 2011-121522-CH “Holton v Ward, 303 Mich App 718 (2014) is a landmark Michigan real property case establishing that riparian rights do not attach to artificial or man-made bodies of water. In Michigan, riparianism (the rights to use and access a water body, including docks, bottomlands, and water access) strictly adheres only to land abutting natural watercourses. “ (The court ruled that an impoundment created by man-made dams or flooding does not confer riparian rights to the adjacent property owners, even if the pond is large (e.g., 20 acres). )
Page 3
COA 2010 Persell v. Wertz, 287 Mich App IE: “A “riparian proprietor” is a person who is in possession of riparian lands or who owns an estate therein. 4 Restatement, Torts, § 844, p 331. See also Little v. Kin5 which adopted Thompson's definition of “riparian land” being land bounded by a natural water course. While the above alone would make it clear that an artificial pond does not create riparian lands with riparian rights, the Court went on to make the point even clearer: Artificial water courses are waterways that owe their origin to acts of man....... 4 Restatement, Torts, § 841, subd h, p 321. Land abutting on an artificial water course has no riparian rights. “it is clear under Michigan law that no riparian rights arise from an artificial body of water “ Parsons v. Whittaker (1996) Michigan Court of Appeals case (COA 170274) : “The general common law rule is that land abutting on an artificial watercourse has no riparian rights. The rationale for this rule is that: The natural corporeal right in question is possessed by riparian owners of land on natural channels of water courses only. Such right does not exist in the water flowing in an artificial channel. The right of those owning land bordering upon or through which artificial channels pass, to the use of the water flowing therein, is not a natural right, nor a corporeal right, but an incorporeal right, which can be acquired only by grant, express or implied, or by prescription.” (Emphasis in original.) MSC 1967 Thompson v. Enz (379 Mich. 667, 1967 / 385 Mich. 103, 1971) “a landmark Michigan Supreme Court case that established key precedents for riparian rights and water law” AS being fact that the 17+ acre parcel which encompases Gillians Springs remains in private ownership... the surrounding parcels do not inherit nor posess rights of use or ownership PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Our deeds do NOT specificy such. Any of the surrounding properties being re-sold would therefore NOT legally be able to claim either pond usage nor rapiarian rights. Those of us who have purchased those parcels of land which were sold all have deeds which show by survey that such land descriptions END at the edge of the man made artificial pond commonly known as Gillians Springs or Mohlers Pond. All our deeds clearly show that property lines do NOT extend into the 17 acres covered by Gillians Springs. Ownership of that 17+ acres continues to date to be held by a private individual as per county records. Repeated attempts have been made over the past 45+ yrs to request that the Township fix the issue created by illegally charging us property owners undeservered value per property taxes for land we do not legally have ownership or legal use thereof. Differing Township supervisers and T.A.'s have gone back and forth on this issue. At a Michigan Tax Tribunal of 3/8/1982 (docket # 57429) per their final decision the Tribunal issued a final order per property in reference to being charged “lake frontage” on Gillians Springs. They issued a decision affirming that parcels sold have NO lake frontage per the fact that the registered deed (and all the registered deeds
Page 4
surrounding this parcel of water) does NOT include that land which comprises the 17.39 acres commonly known as “Gillians Springs”. Two earlier B.O.R. 's (for another property parcel around Gillian Springs) also agreed that it was wrong for the T.A. To access “Lake Frontage” for properties surrounding Gillian Springs (ie: parcel #43-13-018-014-16) as this parcel held NO Ripiarian Rights. These being the 2000 + 2002 Lake Township Board of Review's ... and again... the 2026 B.O.R.'s for both parcels (#43-13-018-014-16 AND #43-13-019-001-31) agreed that a “lake frontage” assessment was not viable. Both property assessments were reduced. As it is clearly shown above the T.A. .and Lake Township have erred in adjudicating a just cause for attaching “lake frontage” costs to the properties surrounding Gillians Springs...including thusly the property per this Tribunal ie: Parcel 43-13-019-001-31 Furthermore, the so called “lake frontage” per this property (Parcel 43-13-019-001-31) exists nearly 90 feet below the existing cabin. The high bluff acts as a predominate barrier of any access. Per Real Estate professionals the topography of a property—its elevation and slope—can influence not only the view but also the utility of the land and thus highly effects valuation. When I (Roger Jones) purchased this property in 2014 and the T.A. exacerbated the T.C.V. I went before the B.O.R. Explaining the legality of “Lake Access” charges, the negative impact of the bluff and the nearly 1/2 mile “two-track” easement access along with other key issues which then brought forth an adjustment by the B.O.R. To reduce the 20 acre (combined from 2 - 10 acre lots) property's A.V. By 56% (91,800 down to 51,500) however, the T.A. Did not remove the “lake frontage” factor from the property cards. The T.A. Continues to assign a “lake frontage” valuation to this property even after directed by the B.O.R.'s not to do so. This led to multiple B.O.R. Reports trying to fix that “lake frontage” issue. Finally, per the 2026 B.O.R., This LACK of “lake frontage” was again reaffirmed which led to a reduction of A.V. And the removal of the “lake frontage” charges on the 4/20/2026 property card for this 20 acres. But the T.A. Did NOT remove the “lake frontage” itimization from the “factors” area of the 4/20/2026 property card report. We should not have to fight this issue over and over and over. Any compentent land sale lender would require a property appraiser to research the ripiarian rights to this parcel of land PRIOR to purchase. An examination of the deed and a knowledge of Mich law would clearly show that NO inherit right of pond usage could be legally constructed in a purchase agreeement or deed. Per the fact that this property does NOT acquire ripiarian rights to the pond water, and due to the land construct features, any and all attempts to attach “lake frontage” charges should be seen as excessive and the T.A. Should be clarified on such. Charging this property.... “values”.... that relate to another privately held property seems and is.... wrong. In Michigan, a tax assessor can not legally charge a person property taxes on real estate that you do not own as the duty to pay “real property” taxes rest on the holder of the legal title registered at the Lake County Register of Deeds. The T.A. is attempting to charge this parcel with a “lake frontage” cost. He is attempting to charge such for another persons property. A property which “legally” this parcel has NO ownership of...and... the State of Michigan has clearly judged cannot be charged for. A property's taxable value should not be increased by adjoining privately held lands. I am requesting that the M.T.T. Once again afirm that the T.A. Remove the “lake frontage” charge from
Page 5
this parcel per the 2024 + 2025 property tax payments and adhere to the 2026 B.O.R. Decision that deletes this “lake frontage” charge from the 2026 property card land valuation .... and future property cards. ISSUE #2 – A MISS-CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STYLE We feel that, per the information within the M.A.M. 2014 Tax Assessor's Manual (2024 updated), that the low cost owner built cabin upon this parcel (built by the owner using reject, re-purposed and cheap materials from their respective workplaces and other avenues and without benefit of a building permit nor instruction from any qualified builder or carpenter) qualifies it most closely to the definition of a Class D construction per the manual. It has been, and is, currently classified as a CD. Per the manual explainations of Class style: Class D economy constructed with cost as the primary determining factor. Materials and workmanship may or may not meet Federal or local building codes. In the Michigan Assessors Manual, these structures are defined as basic, lower-cost wood-framed houses with minimal architectural details. Class CD Tract Type Constructed with materials and workmanship meeting minimum Federal and local building codes (this cabin has only a 60 amp electrical system) Generally, a Michigan Class C home represents standard, average-quality brick veneer, concrete block, or masonry construction, while a Class D home represents standard wood-framed construction with wood, vinyl, or aluminum siding. A Class CD home often blends elements of both... (this cabin uses only wood-framed with vinyl siding NO block, brick nor masonry) Ken Devriss built this low cost recreational cabin over the period of 2 summers as he gathered materials that were damaged from his company worksite. Along with that his son in law Ron brought up windows and doors and other items that were rejects (from defects) from the door and window company at which he was a salesman. They did all the work on the cabin themselves over a period of “vacations”... learning as they went. Being that this was Ken's “second home” and really just a glorified “deer camp” cabin, he tried as much as he could to keep the costs of the entire project very low and within his limited budget. His wife was NOT on board with the project so that also limited his funding... This was the ONE and ONLY cabin that Ken Devriss ever built! This cabin is a small one floor with a loft. A simple rectangular building with NO extras or “flash”. Cheap vinyl siding with the entrance deck laid on the ground with no elevation footings. His only intent was to use the cabin for their 2 week “deer camp” in the fall and for a yearly week or two of vacation. They did not use it at all in the wintertime as it was impossible to open the long 2- track easement for driving after the snow fell. We do so now with my heavy farm equipment but it sure takes the toil... And it was impossible for the propane gas truck to supply them in the winter. Clearly this cabin represents the Class D most closely and we ask that this classification be used on the T.C.V. Mathmatics.
Page 6
oT 5 Lo 4 uy Ti 3% 2 I) 2 pe LR Ta ey Sor 7k ft 3 2 3 BE 3003 §< wok. = F ——— —_— ill | — ao >» | —B = Se = 8 2% | 0 ee 4s BX SEURY wi 4 on ny Ed + a Wh «ta Ny Ji nd EO ns | > “54 ‘4, Lig: Ay <3 & 0) By 3 Eo AN << i = w \ 4 Yrs: % 5) J Bi XA of Ca 7 “aw ho lw = an te tl — — fy LJ a [Ay aa of — bE > i gf L Ram, — LL. P= = wn, Bows E——— & T— =| Lo wm wz a3 It 1 | aE rw § uw = xT. oA wr 4 Bu * 8 Al a Ale © _ wd MA Tad Fo [OWE = AN. = |= Wan ANE ua I — -— | a Tul | EE wdATY™ -A So a. al) Timi fr rem rire 2 A A alia ¢ 1) mu = i TIF shar as CT om - aq 1 SF
Page 7
ISSUE OF CONCERN #1 – UNSKILLED LABOR REDUCTION FOR LOW COST FARM CABIN The low-cost recreation cabin which sits on this parcel was owner built without skilled supervision and without benefit of a building permit. Per M.A.M. “Low cost cabins are usually seasonally used structures which are frequently construced with less than average workmanship and with just enough extras to yield a marginally habitable building.” The builders were owner Ken DeVris and son-in-law Jack. Neither were skilled builders being as such that Ken was a Logistical operations manager for a Trucking company and Jack was a salesman for a Door manufacturer. Nevertheless they took on the task of trying to build a low cost recreational cabin to use for vacations and deer hunting. It took them 2 summers of hard work. They made MANY mistakes and took MANY shortcuts and in the end never did quite finish the cabin prior to selling it too me in 2014. Using salvage material from both their jobs they did indeed succeed in at least getting a workable cabin to use for two weeks of deer hunting each fall. That was their main goal. Get the cabin livable enough to keep them warm inside after a days hunt. I helped them with my farm equipment and my hammer whenever they asked. They supplied the beer. Working on their own with a simple layout plan is not easy and thus many mistakes were made. Some of them include: An off kilter slab foundation: NO frost heave protection under the concrete slab floor !!
Page 8
They decided that a foundation wall under the slab was “not all the important” ??? So they decided to just use old cement blocks at the corners underneath the slab which has since then began to crumble and crack. With no foundation wall the “frost heave” has begun to break down/crack the concrete slab upon which the entire cabin rests. The cabin plans they bought had the option of either a metal roof or a cheaper asphalt shingle roof. Ken decided to go with the asphalt roof which as it turns out is a bad choice for this deep woods heavily wooded lot. And to make matters worse he choose to use undersize OSB (1/2” instead of the normal 3/4”)board for his roofing underlay which, also, in high humidity environment's (aka: heavily wooded lots) begin to decay and warp very quickly. The present roof shows a “wavy” aspect as the OSB board sheets continue to warp..which has caused a great deal of issues with water leakage and ice buildup during the winters. Also, due to the use of the asphalt shingles the roof gets heavily coated with moss. We have since found out that insurance companies will not insure cabins with “mossy” roofs. We've tried multiplie methods to kill the moss but as of yet we've found no solution and thus... have no insurance. This would be highly influential to a potential buyer.
Page 9
Prior to and while building the recreational cabin Ken had used a travel trailer to camp in. They brought in electrical service to the small travel trailer. And when the cabin was finally livable he decided to continue to use the 60 amp sevice to supply electrical to the cabin. This will cause a major devalueation for the cabin as : For a single family home Under the Michigan Residential Code, primary residential services require a minimum of 100-amp service. Insurance Denials: Many insurance companies will refuse to write a policy for a home with only 60- amp service. Because the buyer needs insurance to secure a mortgage, the deal can easily fall through. Price Negotiations: Buyers and Realtor are highly likely to request a substantial price reduction— often covering the cost of a full electrical upgrade—to compensate for the outdated system. Safety Concerns: If the 60-amp panel features obsolete equipment (like old fuse boxes or recalled brands like Zinsco or Stab-Lok), underwriters may flag them as high risks. Not only did Ken decide to use the existing 60 amp 3 breaker system but he also failed to complete many of the electrical hookups in the cabin. Many of the electical outlets are not working, as well the ceiling fan and lights. Prior to being able to sell this cabin it would require a major electrical overhaul to bring it up to code and in order to secure a mortgage. ANY credibile lender inspection would not fail to note this flaw. There are many other incomplete or flawed aspects to this owner built cabin the are highly prejudicial to pricing it for T.C.V. They include, in addition to the above items, NO front door steps. Windows and appilances were purchased as “defective or damaged goods” thru Ken's or Jack's workplace. Walls are only 2x4 construction with min. Insulation as Ken decided not to buy additional insulation at the time of the build. They used no insulation on the floor or under the foundation slab and no pad or underlayment for the carpet. Doors were factory rejects.
Page 10
Ken's placement of the cabin was not good. His decision was based on aesthetics rather than good building practice methods. The cabin was built far too close to an eroding 90 foot high sand + gravel bluff and will eventually need special needs to fix. And, he choose NOT to cut the many old and degraded trees surrounding the cabin (again for aesthetic reasons) and this also will highly effect the ability and value of the cabin when sold. Some of these issues I knew about (because I did help him during the building process many times) prior to my purchase of the properties. Some I did not. Plus, as I am also not an experienced builder there were many that I was unaware of until they were pointing out to me by insurance attempts or visits by real estate agent friends. The farm cabin was not a huge factor in my purchase needs as I was buying the 20 acres more the future potential for my Maple Syrup farming and for the firewood availability for use in the Maple Syrup production on the farm. We had never even intended to use the recreational cabin other than for seasonal guests until my son and his family needed a temporary home (he is the present homesteader as they build a nest egg for a future home). ALSO The TA has set the “function ability” of the cabin at 100% which we believe is incorrect. I would consider the “function-ability” of this cabin to be at least 30-35% impaired and that this should be noted upon the property card and duly factored in when setting valuation. Having presented all this information my reasoning is to request from the M.T.T. a deduction allowance per the 2025 Assessor's Manual Volume I (Residential and Agricultural) section 12 page 2 ...ie: “Farm or ranch-built buildings must be graded according to the quality of workmanship and sometimes the value of the labor is very low, bringing the end costs below those listed. For buildings constructed by the owner, often using some secondhand material, 15%–30% may be deducted to reflect proper wage rates and lack of job supervision relative to the quality of the work.” We think that a deduction is warranted in the range of 15-20% with the 15% being minimal.
Page 11
ISSUE OF CONCERN 2 --- A neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation based on the highly used easement road running in the center of the entire 20 acres. Per M.A.M. Edition 2017 page 16 “211.7e ..... (2) The value of land over the surface of which is located a public right of way shall not be considered when the real property is being assessed.” While our easement is not considered a public road we have no real ability to reduce the traffice from both the back lot landowners and their many many many friends and guests! The precedent above per public roads should be used by the T.A. when costing the parcel with this easement! However this factor is continuely overlooking by the Township Assessor when valuing the property and he has never offered any sort of adjustment via the un-improved, dirt road, highly used, easement... (extensively used by the other property owners and their multiple guests) running smack dab down the middle of the entire 20 acres! The easement road is deeded to the lands. From the main road entrance to the cabin on this property is approx. 1/2 mile of sand + gravel two track easement. There is NO maintance agreement deeded to the various properties it runs thru. I am the only one who keeps it clean.. and snowplowed in the winter. Without my work this cabin would be a “seasonal” cabin only. Anyone wishing to purchase this property would have to factor in the cost of maintainance and accessability. Obviously it would be much less desirable than a “main road cabin”. Online law firm content...“In Michigan, ..... Assessors generally factor these access roads into your taxes using a market value approach, treating the easement as a partial restriction ....” “A private access road restricts how you can use that specific slice of land. Assessors and appraisers use the "before and after" method to evaluate partial takings. They compare the total market value of your property without the easement against the value with the easement in place. Because an easement encumbers the land, it generally lowers the overall fair market value of the burdened property.” According to Real Estate professionals “Easements that restrict your use or aesthetics can devalue a property, typically by 5% to 50%, depending on how invasive they are “ The Parcel included an easement clause within the deed. It remains in effect in perpetuity . The easement is a 66 foot wide approx 1/2 mile long dirt track sand/gravel easement driveway, which is shared with other property owners and their multiple guests and is un-maintained or improved (unless I do it), from the main gravel road (South Branch Rd) to this parcel. The easement is highly used by the other property owners and is almost always in disrepair. This easement road has a very high negative impact on the land value for this property. Being heavly used and very poorly maintained this easement becomes a "bog" most of the spring and fall. And then mostly impassable during the winter months. As the easement runs right past the cabin this easement "highway" would be a very definite depressor of value should we ever desire to sell the property. It is our contention that there should be an “adjusted loss value” deducted from the A.V. Of this property.
Page 12
MCL 211.10e indicates: All assessing officials, whose duty it is to assess real or personal property on which real or personal property taxes are levied by any taxing unit of the state, shall use only the official Assessor's Manual or any Manual approved by the state tax commission, consistent with the official assessor's Manual, with their latest supplements, as prepared or approved by the state tax commission as a guide in preparing assessments. And the Mich Assessor's manual clearly states that such "de-valuations" (as per easements) should be held as an adjustment of value when determining the Assessed Value and thereby the T.A. should set the S.E.V. at the current value adjusted with negative aspects to each property... clearly an easement road running thru the middle would be such! As seen in B.S.A photo...the easement goes right thru the center of the entire 20 acres. In doing so it effectively disallows the useage (for any other reasons) of a huge swath of this property. This would subtract the “usuage value” of the 20 acres by approx 15%. Which is clearly a “negative” aspect to the value. For that result alone there should be an adjustment in value for this 20 acre property. In addition, having an un-maintained (i.e.: no county snowplowing, grading, or repair) easement has, according to numerous real estate companies and professionals, a HUGE impact in the value and sellability of a parcel of land. A short quick search of info on the net revealed the following about "negative" value of an road easement and property value. "The impact of an esement on the property value will depend on the degree of interference permitted by the easement, said David Reischer,Esq., real estate attorney and CEO of LegalAdvice.com......For instance, an easement that permits regular and steady traffic across a parcel and that interferes significanlty with the enjoyment of the property by the owner (of said property) might have a significant negative effect on the value of the property." (MoneyTips.com) The right of way easement is one of the most common types of easements. Easements can affect a property in several ways. When there is an easement on a property, the owner may be prohibited from building structures within a defined area. For example, an owner will likely not be allowed to erect a fence or plant trees that obstruct access or block the use of an easement. Easements can affect property value and impact your ability to build or renovate on your land. If you’re a buyer and you’re looking at a property with an easement on it, the inconvenience of the easement could offer some leverage to negotiate seller concessions. (Luxuryrealestate.com)
Page 13
Resale values might be impacted by structures, wires, pipes, etc. placed by utility companies, especially if they are unsightly or prevent owners from developing the land for personal purposes. Buyers might not like the idea of others “trespassing” on their land, even if being done legally. (legalzoom.com) Whether you're the dominant or servient property of an easement, having an easement can sometimes negatively affect the value of your property. Not everyone wants to buy property with an easement on it, so the property with the easement may take longer to sell. (quora.com) An easement is an encumbrance on a property. No matter what type of easement or the terms, any property burdened by an easement will have a diminished value in comparison to the same property without that burden. private roads may be a result of several property owners sharing common access with maintenance cost shared by the owners. There is an upkeep factor that may not be as desirable as being on a public road, ..... Also if there isn't a written maintenance agreement filed in public records between the owners on the private road, some lenders will not loan on such properties which could affect values. (antonlegal.com) Determining the value of a piece of property with an easement on it can be difficult. However, the type of easement on the property will greatly affect the price.Additionally, “the size of the easement compared to the overall size of the property will play a role”. (civilstuff.com) “An easement will generally devalue a property by an amount proportional to the size and impact on surface area.” When appraising a property that has an easement on it, you (the T.A.) should initially value the property as if the easement was not present. By valuing the property as you normally would, you can find a fair purchase price and then lower or raise the price depending on the type of and how invasive the easement is on the property. (eweb.irwaonline.org) The proper valuation methodology for easements is the “before and after” rule. A variation of this rule is the “take plus damages” rule. Generally, case law and appraisal literature support this methodology. Strictly speaking, the appraiser does not appraise an easement but rather measures the impact of the easement on the burdened property. The measure and impact (value) of an easement is the loss in value to the remainder property after imposition of the easement. This diminution is comprised of both the easement acquisition and damage (if any) to the remainder.
Page 14
This unimproved dirt track easement, with NO written maintenance agreement filed (I am the ONLY person who attempts to keep the easement passable) assigned to this parcel, across nearly the center of both, has a very high negative impact on the value of the entire 20 acre property. A "negative" value that our Township Assessor has not and will not address within the valuation of our properties. With 15% of the total 20 acres tied up in an deeded easement there HAS to be some sort of land valuation adjustment. It's only common sense. While an entrance drive is needed to get into a purchased property I wanted to point out that usually an “easement” road goes TOO a property and stops... or in the case of a multiply parcel easement... it is usually found along the edge or many times even deeded as a seperate piece of land as an easement for all the parcels. This is the most common way I've seen easements approached via the BSA land maps for Lake County. Sadly, the terrian of the parcels that rely on our easement drive did not make it possible to build it “out of the way”... most of the land involved is extremely hilly or covered with swamps and water. So the developer did not have much choice in “Where” to put the easement. It runs pretty much right in the middle of all the parcels it accessess. And thus, it creates a huge factor in “liveability” for the owners. And the “potential” owners when pricing it for “Market Value”. By taking up wide swaths of land it reduces availability and resource for the landowner. And it's VERY evident right away as the easement is “right in your face”. Any potential buyer would immediately realize the impact it causes. So, yes, the easement “gets me to my home” ...but... it also brings with it tremoudous imposition and loss of privacy. These are VERY undersirable when it comes to selling ones property!!! There are long standing examples of the T.A. Adjusting “land values” based on conditions of use. Even his own family farm across the street was de-valued for many many yrs under the basis that the farm land was “not farmable” which produced a land valuation of $1,600 while the surrounding farm lands (per parcel #'s 43-13-018-004-01...#43-13-019-002-00...#43-13-018-00) were valued at $1,800 to $2,000 during the same tax years. This 20% reduction in value and the reason was listed on the property cards of parcel #43-13-017-005-00 per FOIA'ed cards from 2023, 2024,2025,2026 (and many prior yrs) as “swampy non farm” showing thus... that the T.A. Has adjusted land valuations based upon “conditional use of the land”
Page 15
Just as he devalued his own acreage because it was not “useable” one would expect a devaluing of land taken from useage per an easement. Another example of the T.A. Adjusting land value based upon conditions of use can be seen where he has lowered assessed values for those properties which do not have road access. A good example is the farm abutting ours... which the T.A.'s cousin owns... a 40 acre farmland parcel (#43-13-019-002-00).... In 2022 when surrounding ag properties with road access were being valued higher this property was valued at only $1,800 per acre and I was informed by the B.O.R. It was because of having NO road access. This parcel has had no land value increase per FIOA'd property cards of 2023,2024,2025. Again this shows that the current T.A. Has acknowleded a devaluing of land... based upon access conditions and useage. If there is a value adjustment for NO access then there should be a value adjustment for INCREASED access via a deeded easement.
Page 16
Another example of easement roads effecting valuations can be seen using the original pricing structure of the developer who sold the various parcels affected by the easment in question above. Per the original map used by my parents when scouting a potential land purchase in 1978 (the parcel valuations were penciled in to help my folks decide wither to purchase or not) and Lake County B.S.A. Records ... the selling prices, per acre, starting per the main road parcels (S.Branch Rd) and continuing down the easement, went from a high of $8,100 per acre down to $425 per acre as you go further back along the approx. mile long easement known as Clear Lake Circle. 1. 13-018-014-25 --- $8,100/acre 2. 13-018-014-50 --- $6,560/acre 3. 13-018-014-35 --- $4,423/acre 4. 13-018-014-45 --- $3,125/acre 5. 13-018-014-40 --- $1,850/acre 6. 13-019-001-70 --- $1,590/acre 7. 13-019-001-55 --- $1,400/acre 8. 13-019-001-51 --- $1,200/acre 9. 13-019-001-75 --- $425/acre 10. 13-019-001-85 --- $425/acre Clearly this shows the devaluation that comes with the longer and longer easement as being less and less sellable in the eyes of the original devolper. Even if the two highest are kicked out (they being right on the main road) and the two lowest (they being at the very furthermost away from the main road) there is still nearly a 400% diff. And if one takes #5 thru 8 (which are all 10 acre parcels) one can see a 35% decrease as the easement gets longer + longer. Based upon the T.A. Practice of lower “land values” based on conditional use and the actual real estate valuations per length of easement, we think that a 20% decrease in “Assessed Value” is not out of line. Therefore I request that the M.T.T. Require the T.A. To adjust the “Assessed Value” for this parcel showing the 20% as a loss in value based on the above and to show that loss on the property card as a “loss deduction” in the “Factors” table.
Page 17
ISSSUE #2 -- Miscalculations of Depreciated Value 10/23/24 + 2/26/2026 property cards provided via FOIA I have FOIA'd the property cards for this property each year for 2023/2024/2025/2026. Starting with the 3/17/2023 Property Card it is seen that the T.A. Noted a effective age of 45 yrs thus making the depreciation at 55% With the 10/23/2024 property card the effective age was not adjusted but stayed at 45yr thus the correct depreciation of 54% was not used. With the 3/03/205 property card the effective age was adjusted DOWARD to 44 yrs thus the correct depreciation of 53% was not used. With the 2/26/26 property card the effective age remained at 44 yr instead of the correct value which should have been 48 yrs and thus the correct depreciation of 52% WAS NOT used in the calculations
Page 18
As “depreciation” should naturally decrease with every coming year we have tried to bring this issue up with the T.A. And the B.O.R. Multiply times.
Page 19
Based on the info started with the 2023 property card we ask the Tax Tribunal to rectify and correct the percentage to meet the guidelines within the M.A. M. Issue with valuation of wood shed per “Land Improvement Cost” The shed in question has been sitting on the ground (no footings or foundation only a plywood floor on ground) for over 45 yrs (it was the 1st building put up after purchase of the land by Ked D. for use to store his tools and equipment while building). According to the M.A.M.'s from 2014-2025 and per the “Farm Building Depreciation Schedule” the “remaining condition” value for this farm shed is based upon the “effective age”. Per the property cards FOIA'd from 2023-2026 this shed looks to have been rated at a pricing per sq foot in the BC classification when clearly it is and has been (at a minimum) a class D construction Per Act 206 of 1893 Page 135 section 217 subsection 27 : “(2) The assessor shall not consider the increase in true cash value that is a result of expenditures for normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance in determining the true cash value of property for assessment purposes until the property is sold. For the purpose of implementing this subsection, the assessor shall not increase the construction quality classification or reduce the effective age for depreciation purposes..... Per FOIA'd property cards the T.A. Listed this shed as “44% good” (3/17/2023). On 10/23/2024 card it was listed as “44% good”. On 5/03/2025 it was listed as “58% good” (in direct violation with subsection 27 above). And again on 2/26/2026 property card it was also listed as “58% good”. Per the latest Property Card it remains listed at “58% good”. As the effective age listed on the FIOA'd property card of 3/17/2023 shows the “effective age” as being “45” and thus the corresponding “remaining
Page 20
condition” per the Farm Building Depr. Sched should have been set at 35% and then the following 3 yrs should have been reduced each yr. Ending up with a 2026 “effective age” of 48 and a corresponding “remaining good” %. As this shed is priced via “Land Improvements” section I do not think it is enlarged by the county multipliers nor the ECF but instead is a flat rate based on “Effective Age” and “Remaining Good” per the correct building classification of “D”. However, to be sure I am using the assigned County Multipliers in an abundance of caution. Using the M.A.M.'s approx for the yr in question the following cash values should have been assigned. Per 2017 manual value per sq ft “D” is assigned at $15.78 (halfway between the 100 and 200 sf costs) 2023 … 144 sf x $15.78 = $2,272 x farm C.M. 1.37 = $3,113 x 35% (45 yrs) = $1,090 2024 … 144 sf x $15.78 = $2,272 x farm C.M. 1.38 = $3,135 x 34% (46 yrs) = $1,067 Per 2025 manual value per sq ft “D” is assigned at $22.68 (halfway between the 100 and 200 sf costs) 2025 … 144 sf x $22.68 = $3,266 x farm C.M. .98 = $3,201 x 33% (47 yrs) = $1,056 2026 … 144 sf x $22.68 = $3,266 x farm C.M. 1.02 = $3,331 x 32% (48 yrs) = $1,066 ISSUE WITH MULTIPLING THE WATER WELL AND SEPTIC BY THE E.C.F. The current T.A. For Lake Township (Lake county) has utilized a viewpoint in which he applies the E.C.F value to the water wells and septic systems located on the parcel. We have pointed out at various times that this does not seem to align with the approved Michigan calculation of T.C.V. “No, a Michigan tax assessor should not multiply the value of a septic system or a water well by the Economic Condition Factor (ECF). Under State Tax Commission guidelines, the cost-approach valuation process strictly separates building components from land improvements. The calculation requires specific handling of these utilities. Buildings Only: The calculated ECF is applied strictly to the building improvements (e.g., houses, garages, sheds) on the property. Exclusion of Utilities: Septic systems and water wells are categorized as land improvements or site utilities rather than above-ground building structures. The Math: To find the True Cash Value (TCV), the assessor adds the flat, depreciated cost of the well and septic after the ECF has already been applied to the home.” It seems that our property cards are being recorded and valued differing to this opinion. The calculations of this parcels T.C.V. For the years 2024, 2025 + 2026 (plus the previous 40+ yrs) are effected by this method and we would ask that the proper corrections be applied by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. It is our contention that the depreciated values of the parcels water well and septic system should be listed on the property card under “Land Improvement Cost Estimates” and thus NOT increased (or decreased) by the yearly E.C.F. The wood shed has been placed under “land improvements” whereas, according to the above it should be placed and valued under the “Building Areas” section of the Property Card. And thus'lyThe “Water / Sewer valuations placed within the “Other Additions” section of Building Areas should, according to the above info, be placed in the “Land Improvements” section of the Property Card.
Page 21
THUS Section 27 (1) of the General Property Tax Act defines “true cash value” as “…the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale.... Also.... In Michigan, the True Cash Value (TCV) of a property is determined each year based on the property's condition and market status as of December 31st of the preceding year... In order to arrive at a fair and just “True Cash Value” of parcel 43-13-019-001-31 we ask that the Michigan Tax Tribunal firstly approve the complete discharge and abandoment of the illegal “Lake Frontage” charge on each of the Tax years in question (2025 + 2026). In addition, we ask that our moderate and fair deduction percentage, for a reasonable amount of “Assessed Value” reduction, in the amount of 20%, be approved due to the decreased valuation of the property due to the missplaced and intrusive deeded easement. Based on experience with this T.A. We also ask that the court mandate that these two deductions be shown on the property card for each year as a “Loss” under the “Factors” area and be dually deducted from the overall totals in their proper positions. To date the T.A. Has NOT followed the instructions per M.T.T. Final judgement of October 18, 2024 - Docket No. 23-003171 in reguards to that property in question so we fear the same with this property.In order to visualize and compute the request's we have made above we show the following for each tax year in question. PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2024 (USING 2017 M.A.M. Manual ) 1.5 stories Class D 912 sq ft Buildings valuation 912 s.f. X $105.02 = $95,778.00 Deck 259 s.f X $15.79 = $3678.00 total = $99,456.00 C.M. 1.38 X = $137,249.00 X 46 yr Depr. @ 54% = $74,114.00 Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-11,117.00)
Page 22
Leaving $62,997.00 X the E.C.F. Of 1.157 = $72,888.00 as Building T.C.V. Land inprovements Shed 144 s.f. X $15.79 = $2,274.00 X C.M. 1.38 = $3,138.00 X Depr. Of %good of 34% = $1,067.00 Septic = $3,120.00 Well = $1860.00 totalling $4,980.00 X C.M. 1.38 = $6872.00 X Depr @ 54% = $3,711.00 Depr costs of land improvements = $4,778 Combined total valuations = $77,666 Deduct 20% Easement use loss @ -($15,533) Leaves T.C.V at $62,133 T.C.V x .50 = Building Value of $31,067 B.V.. + L.V of $20,000 leaves $51,067 as Assesed Value and thus Taxable Value. PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2025 (USING 2025 M.A.M. Manual ) 1.5 stories Class D 912 sq ft Buildings valuation 912 s.f. X $105.02 = $123,403.00 Deck 259 s.f X $18.52 = $4,797.00 total = $128,200.00 C.M. .98 X = $125,636.00 X 47 yr Depr. @ 53% = $66,587.00 Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-9,998.00)
Page 23
Leaving $56,589.00 X the E.C.F. Of 1.259 = $71,246.00 as Building T.C.V. Land inprovements Shed 144 s.f. X $22.68 = $3,266.00 X C.M. .98 = $3,201.00 X Depr. Of %good of 33% = $1,056.00 Septic = $2,425.00 Well = $4,068.00 totalling $6,493.00 X C.M. .98 = $6,363.00 X Depr @ 53% = $3,372.00 Depr costs of land improvements = $4,428.00 Combined total valuations = $75,674.00 Deduct 20% Easement use loss @ -($15,135.00) Leaves T.C.V at $60,539 T.C.V x .50 = Building Value of $30,270 B.V.. + L.V of $20,000 leaves $50,270 as Assesed Value and thus Taxable Value PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2026 (USING 2025 M.A.M. Manual ) 1.5 stories Class D 912 sq ft Buildings valuation 912 s.f. X $105.02 = $123,403.00 Deck 259 s.f X $18.52 = $4,797.00 total = $128,200.00 C.M. 1.02 X = $130,764.00 X 48 yr Depr. @ 52% = $67,998.00 Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-10,198.00)
Page 24
Leaving $57,800.00 X the E.C.F. Of 1.260 = $72,828.00 as Building T.C.V. Land inprovements Shed 144 s.f. X $22.68 = $3,266.00 X C.M. 1.02 = $3,331.00 X Depr. Of %good of 32% = $1,066.00 Septic = $2,425.00 Well = $4,068.00 totalling $6,493.00 X C.M. 1.02 = $6,623.00 X Depr @ 52% = $3,444.00 Depr costs of land improvements = $4510.00 Combined total valuations = $77,338.00 Deduct 20% Easement use loss @ -($15,468.00) Leaves T.C.V at $61,870 T.C.V x .50 = Building Value of $30,935 B.V.. + L.V of $25,000 leaves $55,935 as Assesed Value.