MTT Docket 26-002822.pdf

Genesee Mall Realty LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Flint Respondent · 26-002822-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.

GIBBS



 National Property Tax Appeals and Litigation



 July 28, 2026



VIA ELECTRONIC FILING



Michigan Tax Tribunal

P.O. Box 30232

Lansing, Michigan 48909



Re: Proof of Service

 Genesee Mall Realty, LLC v. Flint Charter Township

 Docket no. 26-002822



Dear Clerk to the Tribunal:



Enclosed for filing with the Tribunal, please find a Proof of Service for the above-referenced matter.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (513) 381-

3890.



 Thank you and best regards,



 Ryan J. Gibbs



RJG/jaw

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

 MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL



GENESEE MALL REALTY, LLC,



 Petitioner,



v. MTT Docket No. 26-002822



FLINT CHARTER TOWNSHIP,



 Parcel No(s): 07-28-100-014

 Respondent.



Ryan J. Gibbs

The Gibbs Firm, LPA

Petitioner's Representative

2355 Auburn Avenue

Cincinnati, Ohio 45219

(513) 381-3890



 PROOF OF SERVICE



 Ryan J. Gibbs, first being duly sworn upon oath, states that a copy of the

foregoing petition was mailed to:



VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL



Ms. Paula Dotson, Assessor

Flint Charter Township

1490 S. Dye Road

VIA FIRST-CLASS U.S. MAIL



Ms. Mellissa Hayduk, Director

Genesee County Equalization

324 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 8B

Flint, MI 48502



Domonique D. Clemons

Genesee County Clerk

324 S. Saginaw Street, Suite A

Flint, MI 48502



Ms. Andrea Fick

Secretary of the Board of Education

Swartz Creek Public School District

8354 Cappy Lane

Swartz Creek, MI 48473



Michigan Department of Treasury

430 W Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48922



Onl uly 2% , 2026 by depositing said copy with the U.S. Post Office in Cincinnati, Ohio

in an envelope having sufficient postage.



 Ryan J. Gibbs and The Gibbs Firm, LPA

 Petitioner’s Representative

 2355 Auburn Avenue

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45219

 (513) 381-3890

 Ryan@thegibbsfirm.com

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

 MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL



GENESEE MALL REALTY, LLC



 Petitioner,



 MTT Docket No. Zip— op2¥2Lv.



CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FLINT,



 Parcel No(s). 07-28-100-014 Respondent.



 Ryan J. Gibbs

 The Gibbs Firm, LPA

 Petitioner’s Representative

 2355 Auburn Avenue

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45219

 (513) 381-3890



 PETITION



 Petitioner, Genesee Mall Realty, LLC ("Petitioner"), by and through its



 representative, Ryan J. Gibbs, as authorized by MCL 205.735(3); and TTR 792.1205(1),



 state the following for its Petition:

 1. Petitioner, Genesee Mall Realty, LLC principal offices are located at 150 Great



 Neck Road, Suite 304 Great Neck, NY 11021

 2. Respondent Charter Township of Flint, is the entity responsible under statute

 for the levy and collection of Michigan ad valorem real property taxes imposed by the

205.735(3), and/or was responsible for the payment of ad valorem real property taxes for

 the property, in Respondent, Charter Township of Flint at 4600 Miller 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 31,2025, tax day for the 2026 tax year



 (the "year in issue").

 5. The subject property consists of land, land improvements, building

 improvements and is located within Charter Township of Flint, Genesee County,



 Michigan, and the Swartz Creck Community School District.

 6. The subject property is real property. The parcel is 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) (oxi).

 8. For the year in issue, Respondent assigned on the Notice of Assessment state

 equalized, assessed, and taxable values to the subject property as follows:



 AV ~ | Tax. Value

“Year | TLD. Number(s) N True Cash §

 $2,875,100 | $2,875,100 | $2,875,1002026 | 07-28-100-014 | $5750200



 10. The total assessment-indicated cash value for the subject property for the year

methodologies support Petitioner’s contention of a total true cash value set forth below of



 $1,250,000.

 Year | LD.Number(s) | TrueCash SEV AV Tax. Value

 | = Value Co

2026 |07-28-100-014 | $1,250,000 | $625000 | $625,000 | $625,000



 12. As set forth below, a total of $4,500,200 in true cash value, $2,250,100 in



 state equalized, assessed value, and $2,250,100 in taxable value is in controversy for tax



 year 2026 subject to alterations in cash value contentions that may be necessary as this



 matter progresses.

 ——

 Year LD. Number(s) |" True Cash AV Tax. Value

 Value

2026 | $4,500,200 $2,250,100 $2,250,100 $2,250,100 07-28-100-014



 13. 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, infer



 alia, Const of 1963, art 9, §3 and MCL 211.27a(1).



 14. 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, 2025, the



 relevant tax day.



 15. 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



 r the subject property is not the methodology that most

16. To the extent that Respondent has relied upon market data to achieve the



assessment imposed for the 2026 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



2026 cash value is that identified by Petitioner in this Petition.



 17. The taxable value issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year



in issue is unlawful and invalid because it is the result of Respondents improper



“uncapping” of the taxable value in violation of MCL §211.27a, “The General Property



Tax Act.”



 18. 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



2026.



 19. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the 2026 tax



year is unlawful and invalid because the valuation methodology uscd by Respondent to



compute the assessment for the subject real property at issue is not supported by the law



or facts.



 20. The assessment issued by Respondent for the subject property for the year in



issue is unlawful and invalid because it evidences highly discriminatory and

of assessment established and in effect for comparably-situated and comparably-classed



properties within the assessing district.



 21. The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of



assessment adopted by the Respondent discriminates against Petitioner and denies



Petitioner ils constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.



 22. 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.



 23. 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 lieu



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 2026 state equalized and assessed values the



 subject property to $625,000 and taxable values of the subject property to



 $625,000 or, in the alternative, order assessed, state equalized and taxable



 values be adjusted to amounts supported by factual evidence of the true



 cash value of the property with taxable value capped as required by MCL



 211.27a due to the absence of any transfer and the partially completed



 construction as of tax day; and

(C) To the extent required:



 (1) Render an independent determination of the cash value of the



 subject property as of tax day for the 2026 tax year, and in such



 determination incorporate methodologies and values discerned in



 valuation evidence offered by Petitioner in connection with this



 case;



 (ii) Enter an order reducing the 2026 assessed value of the subject



 property to $625,000, or to a figure that reflects a sum that



 incorporates valuation evidence produced by Petitioner subsequent



 to the filing of the Petition;



 (iii) Redetermine the subject property's 2026 taxable value to be



 $625,000 to reflect changes necessitated by modifications to the



 subject property's 2026 cash and assessed values;



 (D) Accord to Petitioner such other and further relief as this Honorable



 Tribunal shall deem appropriate.



 Respectfully submitted,



 The Gibbs Firm, LPA

 Petitioner’s Representative



Date: ES Ga 26 By: an

 Ryan J. Gibbs

← View full record