Petition.pdf
West Branch Realty LLC And West Branch Nassim LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of West Branch, Respondent · 25-001839-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL WEST BRANCH REALTY, LLC & WEST BRANCH NASSIM, LLC Petitioner, Vv. MTT Docket No. WEST BRANCH TOWNSHIP, Respondent. Parcel No(s). 014-031-026-25 Geoffrey N. Byrne The Gibbs Firm, LPA Petitioner’s Representative 2355 Auburn Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 (513) 253-0550 PETITION West Branch Realty, LLC and West Branch Nassim, LLC (collectively, "Petitioner"), by and through its representative, Geoffrey N. Byrne, as authorized by MCL 205.735(3); and TTR 792.1205(1), states the following for its Petition: 1. Petitioner is West Branch Realty, LLC and West Branch Nassim, LLC. Petitioner’s principal offices are located at 150 Great Neck Road, Suite 304, Greak Neck,
Page 2
2. Respondent West Branch Township is the entity responsible under statute for the levy and collection of Michigan ad valorem real property taxes imposed by the General Property Tax Act, 1893 PA 206, as amended, MCL 211.1 ef seq. 3. During the time period relevant to this controversy Petitioner owned the real property that is the subject of this Petition, was a “party in interest” pursuant to MCL 205.735(3), and/or was responsible for the payment of ad valorem real property taxes for the property, in Respondent, West Branch Township at 2990 Cook Road and designated by Respondent as the captioned parcel (hereinafter, the "subject property"). 4. At issue in this matter are ad valorem real property taxes for the subject property assessed by Respondent as of December 31, 2024, tax day for the 2025 tax year (the "year in issue"). 5. The subject property consists of land, land improvements, building improvements and is located within West Branch Township, Ogemaw County, Michigan, and the West Branch Rose City Area School District. 6. The subject property is real property. The parcels are classified by Respondent for tax purposes as 201. 7. The present appeal involves a combination of the matter types (valuation; assessment; taxable value; uniformity and exemption) specified in TTR 792.10227 (3)(e)iii). 8. For the year in issue, Respondent assigned on the Notice of Assessment state
Page 3
Year | LD. Number(s) True Cash SEV AV Tax. Value Value 1 2025 | 014-031-026-25 $7,611,800 $3,805,900 | $3,805,900 | $1,668,214 in issue is $7,611,800. are significantly overstated relative to true cash value and proper valuation 9. The total assessment-indicated cash value for the subject property for the year 10. Petitioner asserts that the subject property's 2025 assessed and taxable values methodologies support Petitioner’s contention of a total true cash value set forth below of $1,500,000. Year | LD. Number(s) True Cash SEV AV Tax. Value Value 2025 | 014-031-026-25 $1,500,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 11. As set forth below, a total of $6,111,800 in true cash value, $3,055,900 in state equalized, assessed value, and $918,214 in taxable value is in controversy for tax year 2025 subject to alterations in cash value contentions that may be necessary as this matter progresses. Year | LD. Number(s) True Cash SEV AV Tax. Value Value 2025 | 014-031-026-25 $6,111,800 $3,055,900 | $3,055,900 $918,214 12. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year in issue is unlawful and invalid because the assessment, as equalized, exceeds 50% of the property's cash value contrary to applicable provisions of statute and constitution, inter
Page 4
13. The assessment issue by Respondent for the subject property for the year at issue is unlawful and invalid because it overstates the value as of December 31, 2024, the relevant tax day. 14. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year in issue is unlawful and invalid because the valuation methodology used by Respondent to compute the assessment for the subject property is not the methodology that most accurately adduces a cash value for the subject property and does not reflect a proper reconciliation of all applicable approaches to value. 15. To the extent that Respondent has relied upon market data to achieve the assessment imposed for the 2025 tax year, Respondent's analysis of the selling prices of allegedly comparable properties is flawed; a properly-conducted study of the market for properties akin to the subject property at its location will reveal that the subject property's 2025 cash value is that identified by Petitioner in this Petition. 16. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year in issue is unlawful and invalid because the valuation methodology used by Respondent to compute the assessment for the subject property fails to account for all factors limiting value including, but not limited to, the inability of the property to produce positive cash flow sufficient to support the cumulative assessment-indicated cash value for tax year 2025. 17. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the 2025 tax
Page 5
18. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year in issue is unlawful and invalid because it evidences highly discriminatory and constitutionally infirm treatment at the hand of Respondent to the extent that Petitioner's property has been assessed at a level of assessment that is greater than the average level of assessment established and in effect for comparably-situated and comparably-classed properties within the assessing district. 19. The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by the Respondent discriminates against Petitioner and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 20. The taxable value discerned by Respondent for the subject property for the year in issue is unlawful and invalid and must be decreased to reflect adjustments to the subject property’s assessed and state equalized values ordered by the Michigan Tax Tribunal pursuant to this Petition. 21. Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition to include such additional allegations and claims as may become known to it in the course of this proceeding, including, but not limited to, any possible claims relating to exemption, payments in licu of taxes, and the value of any addition or loss to the property, see TTR R 792.10221. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: (A) Enter an order reducing the 2025 state equalized and assessed values the subject property to $750,000 and taxable values of the subject property to
Page 6
(B) ©) ®D) 211.27a due to the absence of any transfer and the partially completed construction as of tax day; and Award to Petitioner a refund of unlawfully overpaid taxes, together with statutory interest as appropriate, costs and attorney fees; and To the extent required: 0 (ii) (iii) Render an independent determination of the cash value of the subject property as of tax day for the 2025 tax year, and in such determination incorporate methodologies and values discerned in valuation evidence offered by Petitioner in connection with this case; Enter an order reducing the 2025 assessed value of the subject property, $750,000, or to a figure that reflects a sum that incorporates valuation evidence produced by Petitioner subsequent to the filing of the Petition; Redetermine the subject property's 2025 taxable value to be $750,000 to reflect changes necessitated by modifications to the subject property's 2025 cash and assessed values; Accord to Petitioner such other and further relief as this Honorable Tribunal shall deem appropriate.
Page 7
Date: 5-30-25 Respectfully submitted, The Gibbs Firm, LPA Petitioner’s Representative CD me By: — Geoffrey N. Byrne The Gibbs Firm, LPA 2355 Auburn Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 (513) 253-0550 geoff(@thegibbsfirm.com