24-003404.pdf
Paul Chirco, Petitioner V City Of St. Clair Shores, Respondent · 24-003404-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 Paul Chirco, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003404 City Of St. Clair Shores, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Nancy Klukowski, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephone Hearing Held on: October 15, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Paul Chirco Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Melissa Listenbee, Assessor PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable value (TV) for the tax year at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 5009-14-26-153-018 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $190,000 $95,000 $95,000 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR) and did so to the 2024 March BOR. The BOR did not change the assessment. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 3, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on September 23, 2024. On September 10, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Petitioner in default for failing to pay the required filing fee with the petition. Petitioner subsequently cured the default. On September 23, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order setting aside Petitioner’s default.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 2 of 8 The amount of SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for 2024 is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for 2025 is not included in this proceeding, at Petitioner’s request.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: a) 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 b) 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, physical losses to the property, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and physical additions to the property, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 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).
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 3 of 8 Parcel Number: 5009-14-26-153-018 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $190,000 $95,000 $95,000 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, 15, and 16 of the docket maintained in this case.10 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the assessment of the subject property is too high. Petitioner testified that they bought the property for fair value. The property was appraised for $165,000; they paid $190,000 in July 2023. They were going to build a house on it, but could not, due to the flood plain. They sold half of the property at no gain, for $140,000, in March 2025. The price was based on the improvements Petitioner made, not because the value of the property went up. They put $75,000 into the property, getting a survey, rebuilding a seawall, and tearing down a small shed on a well, in 2024. Petitioner testified that they did a lot of work with architects to try to build a home on the property, but it would have been necessary to build it up about six feet and put in retaining walls on both sides, which would have been unattractive to the neighboring properties. This would also have caused drainage issues, so ultimately, they abandoned the plan to build, and sold half of the property. On rebuttal, Petitioner reiterated that they still own half the property. Petitioner believes that the assessor is misrepresenting that Petitioner is selling the remaining half for $140,000. The only reason that one half was sold for $140,000 was because they put over $75,000 into it on top of the $190,000 paid, fixing the seawall and making the land sellable. Petitioner uses the remaining half of the parcel for access, and they are working on a kind of a “lease deal” for that part; they expect to recoup no more than 30% of the value. Petitioner believes that Respondent is trying to say that the property is worth more than it is because Petitioner sold half for $140,000, but that is not relevant to when they bought it and how much money they put it into it. Petitioner feels that Respondent’s comparables are overstated, multimillion dollar homes on a beautiful waterfront, and worth much less than the footage price Respondent found. Respondent did not take into consideration that the subject property is unbuildable and basically green space, not worth anywhere near what Respondent says it is worth. The subject property is on the end of a vacated street, across the road from the lake, with an unobstructed view thereof. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year at issue: 10 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. 24-003404 Page 4 of 8 Parcel Number: 5009-14-26-153-018 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $252,000 $126,000 $126,000 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 7, 8, and 13 of the docket maintained in this case.11 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the assessment of the subject property has been correctly calculated. The assessed value for 2024 was $126,000, so the property was worth $252,000. Respondent submitted comparable sales of vacant land to show how Respondent’s values were found. Petitioner sold half the property for $140,000, and assuming Petitioner can sell the other half for the same amount, the total would be $280,000, which is consistent with the 2024 value. Petitioner’s comparables are not comparable to the subject. They are all inferior to the subject, which has a lake view in the front and a canal in the back. One of Petitioner’s comparables is in a less desirable area (and a different township), one is next to a commercial property with no lake view, and another has a home on it. Respondent’s comparables are vacant land, like the subject. Respondent’s assessor testified that the sale prices are consistent with the assessment method used by Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located on 10 Mile Road in St. Clair Shores, in Macomb County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential - vacant. 3. Petitioner purchased the subject property in July 2023 for $190,000, in an arm’s- length sale. 4. The subject property’s 2023 transfer of ownership uncapped the 2024 TV. 5. Petitioner submitted an appraisal dated March 27, 2023, which included a sales comparison grid using five properties: a. Comparable 1, located on Lange Street, sold on May 19, 2022, and has an adjusted sale price of $164,200. b. Comparable 2, located at 41250 Conger Bay, sold on July 18, 2022, and has an adjusted sale price of $168,153. c. Comparable 3, located at 22625 E. 11 Mile Road, sold on November 19, 2021, and has an adjusted sale price of $166,000. d. Comparable 4, located at 27900 Jefferson Avenue, sold on October 18, 2023, and has an adjusted sale price of $126,000. 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 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 5 of 8 e. Comparable 5, located at 22607 E. 11 Mile Road, sold on August 27, 2021, and has an adjusted sale price of $186,000. 6. Respondent submitted information about two vacant land sales: a. Comparable 1, located on Jefferson, sold on April 27, 2022, and has a sale price of $1,200,000. b. Comparable 2, located at 30202 Jefferson, sold on May 3, 2023, and has a sale price of $367,000. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion support the Tribunal’s determination: A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.12 The Tribunal’s factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.13 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.”14 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.15 Petitioner’s testimony and documentation establish that they purchased the subject property for $190,000 in July 2023, and it is undisputed that the sale was an arm’s- length transaction. Although “the purchase price paid in a transfer of property is not the presumptive true cash value of the property transferred,”16 evidence of the selling price of property is relevant in determining the value of property.17 Evidence of a market sale may be considered in the context of the overall market.18 Consideration of the sale is therefore appropriate for the 2024 tax year. Each of the applicable valuation methodologies will be discussed below. 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 vacant land. 12 MCL 205.735a(2). 13 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). 14 Antisdale, 420 Mich at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 15 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. 16 MCL 211.27(5). 17 Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348 (1992); Professional Plaza, LLC v City of Detroit, 250 Mich App 473; 647 NW2d 529 (2002). 18 See Signature Villas, LLC v City of Ann Arbor, 269 Mich App 694, 714 NW2d 392 (2006).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 6 of 8 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.”19 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 . . .”20 In this case, the subject is a vacant parcel. As a result, the cost approach is not a reliable valuation methodology. Income Approach “In the income capitalization approach, the present value of the anticipated future benefits of property ownership is measured . . . In direct capitalization, the relationship between one year’s income and value is reflected in either a capitalization rate or an income multiplier.”21 Neither party submitted an income approach for valuing the subject. As a result, this approach is irrelevant. Sales Comparison Approach Each party submitted a sales comparison approach to value the subject property. “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.”22 Petitioner submitted an appraisal done in March 2023, which includes five comparables. Comparables 3 and 5 sold in 2021, which is too far removed from tax day to be relevant. Comparables 1 and 2 sold in the second and third quarters of 2022, respectively, but that is still too far removed from tax day. Comparable 4 indicates a sale date of October 18, 2023, which is apparently incorrect, given the March 2023 date of the appraisal. Further, as Respondent pointed out, none of the properties are lakeview properties, like the subject. The most similar to the subject is Comparable 2, which is a lakefront property. Respondent indicated that the location – nearly 10 miles from the subject – is less desirable. Comparable 2 is also in Harrison Township, which is outside the city in which the subject is located. Petitioner’s comparables 3, 4, and 5 have homes on the property, whereas the subject property is a vacant parcel. For this reason, the gross adjustments on these comparables are very high, between 48% and 67%. 19 Appraisal Institute: The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago, Appraisal Institute, 15th ed, 2020), p 36. 20 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 530. 21 Id. 22 Id. at 36.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 7 of 8 Given the numerous issues with Petitioner’s comparables, the Tribunal gives no weight to Petitioner’s appraisal. Respondent submitted two comparable properties to support its valuation of the subject. However, both comparables are clearly identified on their respective property record cards as “Lakefront - Prime.” While the subject has a lakeview in the front and a canal in the back, that does not equate to prime lakefront property. Further, Petitioner credibly testified as to the subject property being unbuildable without major changes to the topography, to include building up the land by several feet and putting in retaining walls on both sides. As such, the Tribunal finds Respondent’s comparables are not relevant to valuing the subject. Reconciliation of Value As noted above, Petitioner’s July 2023 sale price of $190,000 is relevant to the 2024 tax day and is the only reliable indicator of value on the record in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the subject’s TCV was $190,000 as of tax day 2024. The SEV is set at 50% of TCV. The TV is set equal to the SEV because the subject property incurred a transfer of ownership in 2023.23 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 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. 23 MCL 211.27a.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003404 Page 8 of 8 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: January 21, 2026 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