24-003594.pdf
Jared G McWherter, Petitioner V City Of Warren, Respondent · 24-003594-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 Jared G McWherter, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003594 City of Warren, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING 2025 TAX YEAR Personnel Presiding: Sean M. Mulchay, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Hearing Held on: October 29, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Frank Hillman and Jared McWherter Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Nicole Travers and Sarah Capa PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 12-13-15-380-026 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $284,260 $142,130 $142,130 The 2025 tax year is DISMISSED. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 March BOR. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 3, 2024.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 2 of 12 The amount of the SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market value.”6 The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of both in arriving at its determination.”8 The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 5 MCL 211.27(1). 6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 8 Id. at 356. 9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 10 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 3 of 12 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 12-13-15-380-026 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $190,000 $95,000 $95,000 2025 $235,000 $117,500 $99,750 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, 6, 10, and 11 of the docket maintained in this case.11 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property was on the market for five months during the bank foreclosure redemption period prior to Petitioner’s purchase of the subject property. The last MLS (Multiple Listing Service) list price was $229,000, and Petitioner purchased the subject property for $195,000. The subject property currently has an in-ground pool, which has a negative value compared to neighboring homes value due to the high yearly maintenance costs. Comparable sales with similar designs and proximity to the subject property were submitted to the BOR, but Petitioner was not given sufficient time to make a presentation given all of the supporting information that was submitted. Petitioner considers the purchase of the subject property to be an arm’s length transaction, even though the property was bank owned. Finally, Petitioner argues that the data provided demonstrates that the value of the subject property is $190,000. Petitioner believes that Respondent miscalculated the actual square footage of the property by including unheated extra garage storage as living area square footage. At the hearing, Petitioner’s representative, Frank Hillman, testified that the subject property was listed for three and a half months prior to the bank selling the property. The original list price was $290,000, with $225,00 being the final list price. The lending institution sent out its own appraiser to value the property and based on the condition, priced the property at $195,000. Petitioner subsequently purchased the subject property for $190,000. The subject property had roof issues that required approximately $17,000 to address, and an inground pool that needed renovation. The estimates to renovate or remove the pool were both between $25,000 to $30,000. In total, there was approximately $55,000 in repairs needed, and no consideration was taken into account for these items. The assessment reflects a value of almost $100,000 more than what Petitioner paid for the subject property. 11 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 4 of 12 Although the property has a finished basement, this was completed approximately forty- five years ago and all three of Respondent’s comparables had basements that were superior to the subject property. While the assessor made a $1,000 adjustment based on the boiler heating system, this adjustment was insufficient. The boiler system is sixty-five years old, and this system would cost between $10,000 and $15,000 to replace. Petitioner’s representative claimed that Respondent applied a $10,000 condition adjustment to Comparable 2 because this property was deemed superior to the subject property, but Respondent makes no similar adjustments to the other comparables. For the square footage adjustments, Respondent did not sufficiently explain the flat adjustment amounts. Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s $500 adjustment for a half- bath is outdated and does not reflect current pricing. In terms of Respondent’s comparables, Petitioner’s representative stated that the date parameters used by Respondent in selecting the comparables did not result in any time adjustments being utilized. Petitioner, on the other hand, paid a fee appraiser to value the subject property at $265,000. Petitioner still believed that the value should have been lower than the appraised value because of the roof and pool conditions. At a minimum, this should have resulted in a $50,000 adjustment. Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Petitioner’s representative confirmed that the issues with the roof and the pool were known prior to Petitioner acquiring the property. However, Petitioner did not know the cost to remediate these issues. On rebuttal, Petitioner’s representative pointed out that, at the time the property was listed for sale, it was in foreclosure. The property was listed as private ownership, and the public would not have known it was in foreclosure. Prior to the property being taken back by the bank, the seller reduced the price several times, and the seller would not have reduced the value if there were offers to purchase. The property had over thirty showings but no offers to purchase were generated. According to Petitioner’s representative, this indicates that the property was over listed. At the time of purchase and assessment, the roof and pool repairs had not been completed. The appraiser asked Respondent for parameters for his comparables, and he used those parameters in appraising the property. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year(s) at issue: Parcel Number: 12-13-15-380-026 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $291,500 $145,750 $145,750 2025 $306,180 $153,090 $150,268
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 5 of 12 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 9 of the docket maintained in this case.12 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the reduction was because they believe 27155 Gail is in-line with the market. All of the comparables in Respondent’s report are located in the same school district and economic condition factor (ECF) neighborhood. Additionally, these comparables are all located within a mile of the subject. Each property was adjusted to the subject when necessary and the adjustments applied are reasonable and well supported by the market. As noted by Petitioner, the square footage of the subject was erroneous and has been adjusted to 1,754 square feet with a subsequent plus adjustment to the garage and the heat changed to forced hot water. Petitioner’s comparables were all outside of the subject's school district (none of the comparables are within a mile of the subject) and were sold many months (some more than a year) prior to date of value (December 31, 2023), with no adjustments made for time or location. Some of the comparables were adjusted for a square footage difference over 100 square feet however, the adjustments made were based on the 1,904 square feet measurement. In addition, the $20,000 adjustment for the pool is excessive and not supported by market data. Interestingly, the petitioner states the subject should have a negative adjustment for the pool but then states that all of the comparables should also have a negative adjustment for the pools they do not have. Respondent’s assessor visited the subject property and could see that the pool is open and in good condition. During the hearing, Respondent’s representative clarified that they did, in fact, make time adjustments within the sales comparison approach. Respondent made a seven- month adjustment, three-month adjustment, two-month adjustment, and a three-month adjustment for the last comparable. The date of value in this case is December 31, 2023, and that is the basis for the assessment. All of the comparables selected by Respondent are all within a mile of the subject property. Petitioner’s appraisal, on the other hand, did not make any time adjustments. Had the appraiser made these time adjustments, Respondent believes that they would have valued the property higher than $277,630. Respondent’s representative pointed out that Petitioner’s appraisal report did not value the pool as a positive or negative, and recognized that Respondent does not pick up value for a basement. Respondent’s assessor confirmed this and indicated that the failure to do was based on a citywide policy rather than an oversight. The sale of the subject property occurred in February 2023, and the property was in foreclosure. Respondent considered the sale to be made under duress. The home was in great condition even though the pool may not have been in good condition. However, 12 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 6 of 12 as previously indicated, no value was added for the pool. Finally, Respondent argued that the issues with roof have already been corrected. Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Respondent’s representative confirmed that the property record cards were not submitted in this case. Adjustments were made to correct the living area due to the fact that some of the garage areas were mistakenly picked up as living area square footage. All of the comparables were adjusted to the corrected building area. In closing, Respondent again discussed the time adjustments applied to the comparables. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 27155 Gail, Warren in Macomb County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 3. Petitioner acquired the subject property on February 14, 2023, for $195,000. 4. The subject property is improved with a 1,754 square foot residential structure. 5. Petitioner’s appraisal, which values the subject property as of March 31, 2023, at $265,000, relies on three sales from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023: 1. Comparable 1, 27799 Gail Drive sold for $256,000. The adjusted sale price for Comparable 1 was $264,000. 2. Comparable 2, 27283 Gail Drive sold for $270,000. The adjusted sale price for Comparable 2 was $274,400. 3. Comparable 3, 27754 Santa Ana Drive sold for $260,000. The adjusted sale price for Comparable 3 was $262,000. 6. Respondent generated the assessment for the subject property using the cost- less-depreciation approach to value. 7. Although Respondent generated the assessment for the subject property using the cost-less depreciation approach to value, Respondent did not rely on the cost approach in support of its value contention in this appeal. 8. As its valuation evidence in this case, Respondent relied on the sales comparison approach and the income approach to value. 9. Respondent’s sales comparison approach, which valued the subject property at $277,600, relied on the following sales comparables, all located within the City of Warren: 1. Comparable 1, 27550 Sylvan, sold on May 27, 2023, for $280,000. After adjustments, Respondent’s adjusted sale price for Comparable 1 was $278,990. 2. Comparable 2, 27801 Sylvan, sold on April 10, 2024, for $298,000. After adjustments, Respondent’s adjusted sale price for Comparable 2 was $283,665.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 7 of 12 3. Comparable 3, 27826 Los Olas, sold on November 3, 2023, for $280,000. After adjustments, Respondent’s adjusted sale price for Comparable 3 was $290,100. 4. Comparable 4, 26321 Burg, sold on October 6, 2023, for $275,000. After adjustments, Respondent’s adjusted sale price for Comparable 4 was $286,162. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: The Tribunal notes, as a preliminary matter, that the subject property’s assessment for the 2025 tax year is included in this proceeding.13 Pursuant to MCL 205.737(3), Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”14 “This burden encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”15 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an independent determination of value,16 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with evidence.”17 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”18 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.19 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”20 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.21 13 See MCL 205.737(5)(b) and TTR 273. 14 Id. 15 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 16 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 17 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333) citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App 379, 408- 410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998). 18 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . . for the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike the plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward with evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination except that provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to hire its own appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 19 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). 20 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 21 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354-355 and Great Lakes v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App at 408-410.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 8 of 12 “The ‘substantial evidence test’ has been defined as evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. While it consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence.”22 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”23 The “thing to be proven” in this case is the TCV of the property at issue. TCV is defined 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, and not at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.”24 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.25 “Variations of these approaches and entirely new methods may be useful if found to be accurate and reasonably related to the fair-market value of the subject property.”26 Petitioner did not provide any evidence, let alone sufficient competent and material evidence to meet the burden of going forward for the 2025 tax year. Therefore, the burden of going forward did not shift to Respondent, and the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered. As such, involuntary dismissal of the 2025 tax year is warranted. With respect to the 2024 tax year, a proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.27 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.28 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”29 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.30 Each of the applicable appraisal methodologies will be discussed below with the exception of the income approach, which was not cited or relied upon by either party and appears to be inapplicable to the subject property, which is not an income-producing property. Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as residential. 22 Russo v Dep't of Licensing & Regul, 119 Mich App 624, 631; 326 NW2d 583, 587 (1982). See also Dow Chem Co v Dep't of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 23 Goff v Bil–Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507, 514 n 5; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), overruled on other grounds in Mudel v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed). See also Moore v Prestige Painting, 277 Mich App 437; 745 NW2d 816 (2007). 24 MCL 211.27(1). 25 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 26 Id. 27 MCL 205.735a(2). 28 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 29 Antisdale, 420 Mich at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 30 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170.
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 9 of 12 Cost Approach The cost approach “is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.”31 Further, it is more useful when “a lack of market activity limits the usefulness of the sales comparison approach” and it is “especially persuasive when land value is well supported and the improvements are new or suffer only minor depreciation . . . .”32 In this case, Petitioner did not provide any evidence or testimony related to the value of the subject property using the cost approach. As noted above, Respondent calculated the subject property’s assessment using the mass appraisal, cost-less-depreciation approach to value. However, Respondent did not provide the property record card, land sales study or ECF study associated with the assessment. Considering Respondent did not offer any testimonial support regarding the assessment, the Tribunal places no reliance on Respondent’s cost approach. Sales Comparison Approach “The sales comparison approach is most useful when a number of similar properties have recently been sold or are currently for sale in the subject property’s market.”33 As indicated above, Petitioner’s evidentiary submissions included an appraisal valuing the subject property as of March 31, 2023. The Tribunal notes that such appraisal reports are not conclusive evidence of value, and each must be evaluated on an individual basis to determine both reliability and relevance to the tax years at issue. While this is particularly true when the appraisal is not prepared specifically for the purpose of an appeal before the Tribunal, the express purpose of the appraisal, as indicated by the appraiser, was to value the home for a tax appeal before the Tribunal. While the appraisal was prepared for the purposes of a tax appeal, the appraisal does not value the subject property as of December 31, 2023. Petitioner’s appraisal also indicated that Petitioner “asked that [the appraiser to] appraise the home for tax appeal tribunal. [Petitioner] asked that [the appraiser] appraise home as of March 2023, and use comparable sales from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023.” The appraisal also suggested that the “[a]ssessor is not valuing the pool as a positive or a negative. This appraiser is not valuing the pool as a positive or a negative even though most buyers would want to remove a pool over 30 years old at a cost of likely $15,000 or more and consider it in their purchase offer.” Finally, the appraisal noted that the “[a]ssessor is not giving any value to basement finish. This appraiser is not giving any value to basement finish.” All three comparables in Petitioner’s appraisal are located less than one mile from the subject property, with two of Petitioner’s comparables located on the same street as the 31 Appraisal Institute: The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago, Appraisal Institute, 15th ed, 2020), p. 36. 32 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 530. 33 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 36.
Page 10
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 10 of 12 subject property. However, Petitioner’s Comparable 1, 27999 Gail Drive, and Petitioner’s Comparable 2, 2723 Gail Drive, both sold well before the first valuation date at issue (December 31, 2023). In the case of Comparable 1, that property sold two and a half years prior to the valuation date, while Comparable 2 sold seventeen months prior to the valuation date. The Tribunal finds that these sales are too far removed from the valuation date at issue to be considered a reliable indicator of value, especially in the absence of any adjustment for changes in market conditions or evidence establishing that no adjustments are needed. For Petitioner’s Comparable 3, the appraiser’s adjusted sale price per square foot was $166.13. In terms of Petitioner acquisition of the subject property, by law, “the purchase price paid in a transfer of real property is not the presumptive true cash value.”34 “A great many factors enter into the determination of a sale price, such as need or ability to utilize the property, potential income, actual income, age and physical condition, tax considerations, and financing costs.”35 “Sales price, particularly a single sales price, is only one index of TCV.”36 “In evaluating whether a subject sale between unrelated parties is representative of the statutory ‘usual selling price,’ it is a better procedure to use independent market sales data (where relevant data exists) to test the sale price.”37 Moreover, in order to be accepted as an indicator of value, a property must be proven to have sold “after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, [with] neither . . . under undue duress.”38 According to Petitioner’s representative, the property was in foreclosure and suffered from deferred maintenance, including issues with the roof and the pool. Petitioner’s representative also provided testimony about the length of time that the property was marketed for sale, and the fact that listing agent was working to show the property to potential buyers. Despite these efforts, the property did not sell. Without additional, specific information about why the property may not have sold in a timely fashion, the Tribunal finds that the record is not sufficient to establish that the subject property sold under normal market conditions and pressures so as to provide the best evidence of TCV or “usual selling price” within the meaning of MCL 211.27. Respondent’s valuation evidence included a residential sales comparison report that relied on four specific sales comparables, with these properties selling during 2023 and 2024. The sales grid submitted by Respondent included details about the comparable properties such as the sale date, age/condition, year built, square footage, heating source, and bathroom count, among other details. All of the sales comparables were 34 MCL 211.27(6). 35 First City Corp v City of Lansing, 153 Mich App 106, 115; 395 NW2d 26, 30 (1986). 36 Id (citing Fisher-New Ctr Co v Michigan State Tax Comm'n, 380 Mich 340, 361-362; 157 NW2d 271, 279 (1968), rev'd on other grounds on reh'g, 381 Mich 713; 167 NW2d 263 (1969), wherein the Supreme Court also noted that “while it may seem that a sale which has occurred definitely fixes market price so as almost indisputably to determine true cash value, this is not necessarily the case, particularly if the property is unique and if there have been few sales.” Id. at 362). 37 Richwood Village Associates v City of Lansing, 10 MTT 955 (Docket Nos. 226798 and 237968), issued July 17, 2000. 38 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 15th ed. 2020) p 48.
Page 11
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 11 of 12 located in the same school district and ECF neighborhood as the subject property. Specifically, Respondent’s valuation evidence noted that the comparables were adjusted to the subject, and the adjustments applied were supported by the market evidence. Respondent’s valuation evidence also noted that “the square footage of the subject was erroneous and has been adjusted to 1,754 s[quare] f[eet] with a subsequent plus adjustment to the garage and the heat has been changed to forced hot water.” Although Respondent made adjustments to account for the fact that Comparable 2 sale occurred after the tax date at issue, the Tribunal finds that Respondent failed to provide sufficient testimony or support to suggest that the sale of this property would have been known to a potential buyer as of tax day. Removing Comparable 2, the average adjusted sale price per square of the remaining comparables was $162.53. Reconciliation of Value Given the above, the Tribunal finds that Respondent’s sales comparables, with the exception of Respondent’s Comparable 2, represents the most reliable evidence of value for the subject property for the 2024 tax year. Giving appropriate weight and consideration to the evidence in light of the foregoing discussion, the Tribunal finds that a TCV of $284,260 (rounded) is supported for the subject property. With respect to the 2025 tax year, as noted above, Petitioner did not offer sufficient or material evidence to meet the burden of going forward for the 2025 tax year. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the 2025 tax year is DISMISSED. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final Decision; b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final Decision; or c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other action as is necessary and appropriate. EXCEPTIONS The 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
Page 12
MTT Docket No. 24-003594 Page 12 of 12 why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service (i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. By _________________________________ Entered: December 19, 2025 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