26-000156 claim of appeal 7-10-26.pdf

Eva Elkins, Petitioner V Township Of Waterford, Respondent · 26-000156-TT

← View full record

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

CLAIM OF APPEAL

JIS Code: COA

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

CASE NO.

CIRCUIT

DISTRICT

PROBATE

Court address

Court telephone no.

Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s name(s) and address(es)

Appellant

Appellee

Plaintiff’s attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no.

v

Defendant’s/Respondent’s name(s) and address(es)

Appellant

Appellee

Defendant’s attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no.

In the matter of

Other interested party(ies) of probate matter

1.

Name

claims an appeal from a final judgment or final order entered on

Date

in the

Court name and number or county

Court of the State of Michigan,

by

district judge

circuit judge

probate judge

district court magistrate

Name of judge or district court magistrate

Bar no. .

2. Bond on appeal is

filed.

attached.

waived.

not required.

3.

a. The transcript has been ordered.

b. The transcript has been filed.

c. No record was made.

Approved, SCAO

Form MC 55, Rev. 9/23

MCL 15.240, MCL 710.65, MCR 4.401(D), MCR 7.104(C),

MCR 7.108(C)(3), MCR 7.204(D)

Page 1 of 2

Distribute form to:

Court of Appeals/Circuit court

Trial court

Appellee

Appellant

SRA

Eva Elkins 

DHE Holdings LLC 

2880 Woodbine Drive 

Waterford, Michigan 48328

Charter Township of Waterford, 

Appellate

Oakland County Treasurer, Appellate

Michigan Court of Appeals - District II 2420 E. 13 Mile Road Troy Michgian 48083

248 524 8700

Eva Elkins, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000156 

Appellant Eva Elkins

February 24, 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

Claim of Appeal (9/23)

Page 2 of 2

Case No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that copies of this claim of appeal and bond (if required) were served on

Name

on

Date

by

personal service.

first-class mail.

Name

on

Date

by

personal service.

first-class mail.

Name

on

Date

by

personal service.

first-class mail.

Date

Signature

4. THIS CASE INVOLVES

a. A CONTEST AS TO THE CUSTODY OF A MINOR CHILD.

b. AN ADULT OR MINOR GUARDIANSHIP UNDER THE ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE OR 

 

UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE.

c. AN INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT CASE UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE.

d. A RULING THAT A PROVISION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, A MICHIGAN STATUTE, A RULE OR 

 

REGULATION INCLUDED IN THE MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, OR ANY OTHER ACTION OF THE 

 

LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT IS INVALID.

e. AN ADOPTION ORDER UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE PROBATE CODE.

f. A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ISSUE.

Date

Appellant/Attorney signature

February 25,2026

Eva Elkins 

2/25/2026

Eva Elkins 

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 3/27/2026 6:22:58 PM

JIS Code: COA 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

CIRCUIT 

CASENG 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

Ty 

CLAIM OF APPEAL 

DISTRICT 

[_]IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

PROBATE 

Court address 

Court telephone no. 

Michigan Court of Appeals - District 1 2420 E. 13 Mile Road Troy Michgian 48083 

248 524 8700 

¢ 

Plaintiff's/Petitioner’s name(s) and address(es) 

[¥] Appellant 

Defendant’s/Respondent’s name(s) and address(es) 

[Appellant 

i 

Appellee 

Eva Elkins 

pel 

Charter Township of Waterford, 

Wlappelie 

! 

DHE Holdings LLC 

v 

| Appellate 

2880 Woodbine Drive 

Oakland County 

Tre: asurer, Appellate 

Waterford, Michigan 48328 

2 

ells 

Plaintiffs attomey, bar no., address, and telephone no. 

Defendant's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no. 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000156 

In the matter of Eva Elkins, 

Other interested party(ies) of probate matter 

1. Appellant Eva Elkins 

claims an appeal from a final judgment or final order entered on 

Name 

February 24, 2026 

in the MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS 

Court of the State of Michigan, 

Date 

Court name and number or county 

by 

[ldistrictjudge 

[J circuitjudge 

[probate judge 

[J district court magistrate 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair 

Name of judge or district court magistrate 

2 Bondonappealis 

 [lfiled. 

~ [Jattached. 

waived. 

not required. 

3. []a. The transcript has been ordered. 

Ib. The transcript has been filed. 

[c. No record was made. 

Barno. 

, SCAO 

Distribute form to: 

raed 55, Rev. 9/23 

Court of Appeals/Circuit court 

MCL 15.240, MCL 710.65, MCR 4.401 (D), MCR 7.104(C). 

Trial court 

MCR 7.108(C)(3), MCR 7.204(D) 

Appellee 

Page 1 of 2 

Appellant 

SRA 

= 

5 

= 

ND 

8 

2 

8) 

b> 

HN 

%n 

£3 

(9) 

ox 

a=

RECEIVED by MCOA 4/6/2026 7:55:09 PM

PR) 

Case No: 

Michigan Court of Appeals 

ra 

DOCKETING STATEMENT 

Court of Appeals: 379638 

Please read before completing form. 

»> 

MCR 7.204(H) and 7.205(E)(3) require an appellant in a civil action to complete and file a 

docketing statement within 28 days after the claim of appeal is filed or the application for leave 

to appeal is granted. 

Failure to timely file this document may lead to dismissal of the appeal. 

An appellee may respond by filing a separate docketing statement. 

» 

This document will be used to screen the appeal for suitability and eligibility for the settlement 

conference program, and will be used to help resolve jurisdictional and transcript issues. 

Itis 

important that you complete this form accurately and legibly. 

» 

The issues identified in the docketing statement do not limit appellant's presentation of the 

issues in appellant's brief. Omission of an issue in the docketing statement will not provide a 

basis for a motion to strike appellant's brief. 

1. Case Name: 

21 Appellant 

[J Appellant 

Eva Elkins 

CLs 

v 

Charter Township of Waterford 

i) Appellee 

Name of first Plaintiff 

Name of first Defendant 

Address: DHE Holdings LLC 

Address: 5200 Civic Center Dr 3rd Floor, Waterford 

2880 Woodbine Drive, MI 48328 

Township, MI 48329 

Telephone No: (917) 445-2369 

Telephone No: 

Attorney Name: 

Bar No: 

Attorney Name: 

Bar No: 

Address: 

Address: 

Telephone No: 

Telephone No: 

2. 

[0 A bankruptcy or other proceeding has been filed which affects this Court's jurisdiction over this 

appeal. 

Identify and explain. 

3. 

[J There are pending or prior appeals in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court which arose out 

of the same transaction, lower court case, or between the same parties. 

Specify case name, lower court number, appellate court number(s), and citation, if available. 

g pending appeals in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court raising 

umber, appellate court number(s), and citation, if available. 

IN 60:SS:L 920T/9/F YOO £q AAATIDTI

RECEIVED by MCOA 4/6/2026 7:55:09 PM

5. 

Identify all the lower court hearings. 

Type of proceeding (i.e. motion, trial, etc.) 

Date(s) Occurred 

Court Reporter 

an 

Tax Tribunal, Dismissal 

2/25/2026 

PatriciaHalm 

6. Nature of case: 

a. 

Ifthe lower court case number provided on page 1 does not include a suffix, please specify the 

circuit court case code (i.e. NI, CK, etc): 

b. 

Identify the procedural nature of the case being appealed. 

Clarbitration 

O bench trial 

[I post-judgment action 

~~ [Cldeclaratory judgment 

interlocutory matter 

OJ jury trial 

[J summary disposition 

[Jadministrative proceeding (specify agency) 

other (i.e. default judgment) 

7. 

Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result in the trial court. Conclusory statements 

such as "the judgment of the trial court is not supported by law" are unacceptable. Attach 

additional pages as needed. 

Case was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal, stated had to file an appeal with the Appeal course 

8. 

Briefly state the issues to be raised in this appeal. Attach additional pages as needed. 

I am appealing the 2025 property tax assessment for my condominium at 3565 Port Cove Drive #67, Waterford, MI 

rcel ID: 13-35-327-070), held under DHE Holdings LLC. 

20 24 tax bill was $4,045.06, while my Summer 2025 bill increased to $9,936.95 following the uncapping 

e 

erty transfer. While 

| understand that uncapping applies, the resulting taxable and assessed 

significantly overstated relative to actual market activity in the Port Cove development. 

erms of the judgment appealed are: 

settlement negotiations. (Check all boxes that apply.) 

settlement negotiations have been conducted or are scheduled. 

jce on a separate form. 

Nd 60:SS:L 920T/9/F YOO £q AAATADTI

RECEIVED by MCOA 4/6/2026 7:55:09 PM

5. 

Identify all the lower court hearings. 

Type of proceeding (i.e. motion, trial, etc.) 

Date(s) Occurred 

Court Reporter 

an 

Tax Tribunal, Dismissal 

2/25/2026 

PatriciaHalm 

6. Nature of case: 

a. 

Ifthe lower court case number provided on page 1 does not include a suffix, please specify the 

circuit court case code (i.e. NI, CK, etc): 

b. 

Identify the procedural nature of the case being appealed. 

Clarbitration 

O bench trial 

[I post-judgment action 

~~ [Cldeclaratory judgment 

interlocutory matter 

OJ jury trial 

[J summary disposition 

[Jadministrative proceeding (specify agency) 

other (i.e. default judgment) 

7. 

Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result in the trial court. Conclusory statements 

such as "the judgment of the trial court is not supported by law" are unacceptable. Attach 

additional pages as needed. 

Case was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal, stated had to file an appeal with the Appeal course 

8. 

Briefly state the issues to be raised in this appeal. Attach additional pages as needed. 

I am appealing the 2025 property tax assessment for my condominium at 3565 Port Cove Drive #67, Waterford, MI 

rcel ID: 13-35-327-070), held under DHE Holdings LLC. 

20 24 tax bill was $4,045.06, while my Summer 2025 bill increased to $9,936.95 following the uncapping 

e 

erty transfer. While 

| understand that uncapping applies, the resulting taxable and assessed 

significantly overstated relative to actual market activity in the Port Cove development. 

erms of the judgment appealed are: 

settlement negotiations. (Check all boxes that apply.) 

settlement negotiations have been conducted or are scheduled. 

jce on a separate form. 

Nd 60:SS:L 920T/9/F YOO £q AAATADTI

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

EVA ELKINS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. Court of Appeals No. 379638 

 Lower Court No. 26-000156 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________________/ 

APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

Appeal from the Decision and Order 

of the Lower Tribunal/Court 

Submitted by: 

Eva Elkins 

Member, DHE Holdings LLC 

3565 Port Cove Drive, Unit 67 

Waterford, Michigan 48328 

Telephone: 917-445-2369 

Email: Eva.Elkins@gmail.com 

Plaintiff-Appellant, In Pro Per 

Date: 5/23/2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2026 12:11:48 AM

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

EVA ELKINS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. Court of Appeals No. 379638 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________________/ 

APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 

This appeal is taken from the final decision concerning the assessment and taxation of the 

property located at 3565 Port Cove Drive, Unit 67, Waterford, Michigan 48328 (Parcel No. 13-

35-327-070). Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to the Michigan Court Rules governing appeals 

from final orders and decisions affecting property tax assessments. 

II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

1. Whether the assessment of the subject property exceeded its true cash value and fair 

market value as demonstrated by comparable sales and listings within the same 

condominium development. 

Plaintiff-Appellant answers: Yes. 

2. Whether Appellant was denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the assessment 

when notice was not received in sufficient time to pursue available administrative 

remedies. 

Plaintiff-Appellant answers: Yes. 

3. Whether principles of fairness and due process require review of the assessment where 

Appellant lacked timely notice and substantial evidence demonstrates that the assessment 

exceeds market value. 

Plaintiff-Appellant answers: Yes. 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2026 12:11:48 AM

The subject property is a residential condominium located at 3565 Port Cove Drive, Unit 67, 

Waterford, Michigan 48328, identified as Parcel Number 13-35-327-070 and owned by DHE 

Holdings LLC. 

The Summer 2024 property tax bill for the subject property was $4,045.06. Following transfer of 

ownership and uncapping of taxable value, the Summer 2025 property tax bill increased to 

$9,936.95. 

Appellant acknowledges that Michigan law permits uncapping of taxable value following a 

transfer of ownership. However, the resulting assessment must nevertheless reflect the property's 

true cash value and fair market value. 

Appellant did not receive notice in sufficient time to pursue the ordinary appeal process. As a 

result, Appellant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the assessment before the 

applicable administrative deadlines expired. 

Upon discovering the assessment, Appellant promptly sought review and assembled market 

evidence from comparable condominium units within the same Port Cove development. 

The following comparable properties are representative of market conditions within the 

development: 

• 3565 Port Cove Drive #68 (approximately 1,542 square feet), listed for approximately 

$465,000; 

• 3559 Port Cove Drive #23 (approximately 1,650 square feet), sold for approximately $399,900; 

• 3565 Port Cove Drive #63-1 (approximately 1,557 square feet), estimated value approximately 

$411,400; and 

• 3559 Port Cove Drive #17 (approximately 1,200 square feet), listed for approximately 

$334,900. 

These comparable properties indicate a market value range substantially lower than the value 

implied by the challenged assessment. 

Based upon the comparable sales and listings, Appellant believes the fair market value of the 

subject property is approximately $375,000, supporting an assessed value of approximately 

$187,500. 

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Questions concerning the interpretation and application of tax law are reviewed de novo. 

Findings of fact must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the 

whole record. Property tax assessments must be based upon true cash value and may not exceed 

fair market value. 

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2026 12:11:48 AM

V. ARGUMENT 

A. THE ASSESSMENT EXCEEDS THE PROPERTY'S TRUE CASH VALUE AS 

DEMONSTRATED BY COMPARABLE MARKET EVIDENCE. 

Michigan property taxation is founded upon the principle that assessments reflect true cash 

value. Although taxable value may become uncapped following a transfer of ownership, 

uncapping does not eliminate the constitutional and statutory requirement that assessments 

remain grounded in actual market value. 

The evidence presented by Appellant demonstrates that comparable condominium units within 

the same development are valued between approximately $335,000 and $465,000, with sales 

activity clustering near $400,000. The assessment assigned to the subject property exceeds the 

value supported by available market evidence. 

Comparable properties located within the same development provide the most reliable indication 

of value because they share similar location, amenities, construction characteristics, and market 

influences. 

Accordingly, the assessment should be reduced to reflect the property's actual market value. 

B. APPELLANT WAS DENIED A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE 

ASSESSMENT DUE TO LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE. 

Fundamental fairness requires that taxpayers receive adequate notice of assessments and appeal 

rights. Appellant did not receive notice in sufficient time to pursue available administrative 

remedies. 

Because Appellant lacked a meaningful opportunity to contest the assessment within ordinary 

deadlines, strict enforcement of procedural deadlines would result in substantial prejudice and 

would prevent review of an assessment that is not supported by market evidence. 

Once Appellant became aware of the assessment, Appellant acted promptly to initiate review and 

gather supporting documentation. 

Under these circumstances, review of the merits is appropriate. 

C. EQUITY AND FAIRNESS SUPPORT CORRECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT. 

The purpose of Michigan's property tax system is to achieve fair and uniform taxation. The 

evidence submitted demonstrates that the subject property was assessed at a level inconsistent 

with actual market activity within the Port Cove development. 

Failure to correct the assessment would impose a tax burden disproportionate to the property's 

true value and would undermine the principle of uniform taxation. 

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2026 12:11:48 AM

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Reverse the decision below; 

B. Remand the matter with instructions to correct the assessment based upon competent market 

evidence; 

C. Determine that the subject property's fair market value is substantially lower than the 

challenged assessment; 

D. Grant such additional relief as the Court deems just and equitable; and 

E. Award any other relief authorized by law. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Eva Elkins 

Member, DHE Holdings LLC 

3565 Port Cove Drive #67 

Waterford, Michigan 48328 

Date: 5/23/2026 

 

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/24/2026 12:11:48 AM

RECEIVED by MCOA 3/27/2026 6:22:58 PM

Trial Court/Tribunal Name: 

ichi 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

Trial CourtTribunal: 

Jurisdictional Checklist 

en 

379638 

Case Name: Eva Elkins 

v Charter township of waterford 

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this checklist and file with your claim of appeal. ALL of the 

numbered items are required. Check each box as you confirm that each item is being filed. 

Xi 1. 

A signed claim of appeal showing the correct lower court number(s). [MCR 7.204(B)(1) & (D).] 

XA 2. 

Afiling fee of $375.00 or appropriate fee substitute. [MCR 7.202(3) & 7.204(B)(2).] (Where multiple lower 

court or tribunal numbers are involved, an additional filing fee may be required. Appellants will be advised of any 

additional amount required.) 

Xs. 

A copy of the order you are appealing. [MCR 7.204(C)(1).] (This is the order deciding the merits and not an 

order denying reconsideration, new trial, or other post-judgment relief.) 

Xa. 

Evidence that the necessary transcript has been ordered. [MCR 7.204(C)(2).] (Only one item from 

a through g 

is required). 

No transcript will be filed. [MCR 7.204(C)(2) & AO 2004-5 { 8(A)(1).] 

. 

The transcript has already been filed. [MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a).] 

. 

The complete transcript has been ordered. [MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a).] 

. 

This appeal is from a probate court proceeding which does not require a complete transcript. 

[MCR 7.210(B)(1)(b)-] 

e. 

A motion has been filed in the lower court or tribunal for submission of the appeal on less than 

the complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(B)(1)(c).] 

f. 

The parties have stipulated to submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. 

[MCR 7.210(B)(1)(d).] 

The parties have stipulated to a statement of facts. [MCR 7.210(B)(1)(e)-] 

o 

0 OO DOOR 

0 

5. 

Proof of service demonstrating that all other parties have been served. [MCR 7.204(C)(3).] (Even ifa 

party is not an appellee, they must be served.) 

xX 6. 

A current register of actions from the lower court or tribunal. [MCR 7.204(C)(5).] 

(Check the box that demonstrates your claim of appeal is by right. 

If neither 

Finality of Order Being Appealed 

¢ 

applies, you do not have an appeal by right.) 

The claim of appeal is from an order defined as a final order by MCR 7.202(6) or MCR 5.801 (B)(1). [MCR 

7.203(A)(1).] Please specify which category of final order applies: 

e, court rule, or case law as an order 

i 

is 

fi 

an order which is designated by statut 

uF a 

thority under which you have an appeal 

appealable by right to the Court of Appeals. Please specify the aul 

by right: 

Preparer’s Signature 

Date 

R 

g 

6/07 

IN 85:27:19 920T/LT/E YOON £9 AFAIHDHAY

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 26-000156

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax 

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review 

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Eva 

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Elkins 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

2880 Woodbine Drive

City or Town

Waterford

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48328

Telephone Number

9174452369

Fax Number

E-mail Address

eva.elkins@gmail.com

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Kyle

M.I.

Last Name

Bryant

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

2880 Woodbine Drive

City or Town

Waterford

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48328

Telephone Number

248-467-6003

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

kyle.bryant.kb@gmail.com

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? No

 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

3565 Port Cove Drive 

Unit # 67

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Waterford

Michigan

48328

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Waterford (OAKLAND)

County 

Oakland

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Value

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

The petitioner does not dispute that the uncapping of taxable value occurred due to a transfer of ownership. However, the resulting assessed value exceeds the 

property’s true cash value as required under Michigan law.

Based on recent comparable sales and listings within the same Port Cove condominium development, similarly situated units have market values generally ranging 

between approximately $335,000 and $400,000. These market indicators support a fair market value for the subject property closer to $375,000, resulting in an 

assessed value of approximately $187,500.

Accordingly, the current assessed and taxable values are overstated and do not accurately reflect the property’s true cash value.

In addition, Waterford Township has not been helpful with providing assessment information that we have been requesting. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: 

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

Assessment Change Notice was not sent to Petitioner

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number: #13-35-327-070

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR:

219856

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

219856

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

439713 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal*

Parcel Identification Number:

 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review:

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Fee Information

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

No

Are you appealing ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption?

No

If you answered yes to either or both of these questions, you are not required to pay any filing fees.

The filing fee is based on the greater of the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the 

highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being 

appealed, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000.

If your property is residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $125.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $200.00

$Over $500,000.00 $300.00

If your property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $250.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above.

If your property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is $100,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for 

Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed.

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Kyle LeVance Bryant 

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/25/2026 8:28:18 PM

← View full record