Chelsea Main Street Building LLC.pdf
Chelsea Main Street Building LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Chelsea, Respondent · 25-002845-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
Honigman LLP COSTS ADVANCED ACCOUNT Invoice Date Invoice Number Invoice Narrative Payment Amount 6/2/25 ] 99997/997594/SLM *4%$400.00%** Filing Fee for Petition for Chelsea Main Parcel 06-06-12-111-003 RECEIVED JUN 04 2025 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TranInfo:dé06 26021222-1 06/03/25 Chit: 040626 Ant: $400.00 ID: HONIGHAN LLP 21074678.1
Page 2
ep RECEIVED
RECEN
ass
7
:
JUN 0%
wn oan
A
STATE OF MICHIGAN
+ TRUBGRAGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGUL ARGRSENFXIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
Chelsea Main Street Building LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
MTT Docket No.
Parcel No. 06-06-12-111-003
City of Chelsea,
Respondent.
Stewart L.. Mandell (P33781)
Daniel L. Stanley (P57052)
Honigman LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151
(313) 465-7420
slmandell@honigman.com
Petition
Chelsea Main Street Building LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP,
says:
1.
Petitioner's principal office address is 320 N. Main St., Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI
48104. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 06-06-
12-111-003 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 311 N. Main St., located in Washtenaw
County, Michigan.Page 3
3. In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be $862,900 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $862,900, which will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 4. Petitioner's Property is classified as commercial. Petitioner's Property is presently used or available for use for commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (¢) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 7. No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 8. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful for the reasons that: (a) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The 2025 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value,
Page 4
(d) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $862,900 to $400,000; (ii) reducing the 2025 assessed value and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $862,900 to $400,000; (iii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to the foregoing relief, plus interest and costs; and (iv) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is entitled. Respectfully submitted, HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304-5151 (313) 465-7420 slmandell@honigman.com Dated: June 2, 2025