2026-1023 Docket 25-002943 Petitioner Documentation.pdf
Constantine Stavros Lekas, Wendy C Fry, Petitioners V Township Of Bingham, Respondent · 25-002943-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
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No.: 25-002943 Constantine Stavros Lekas, Wendy C Fry, Petitioners V. Township Of Bingham, Respondent Petitioners’ Documentation The Respondent provided information regarding the sale of two properties in the same subdivision as the Petitioners. The parcel numbers for these properties are: + 001-610-011-00, last sold on 29 April 2025 * 001-610-016-00, last sold on 29 March 2022 The Petitioners’ parcel, 001-610-014-00, was purchased on 15 November 2024 for $54,000, Below are the Petitioners’ considerations regarding the parcels presented by the Respondent to justify the SEV of the Petitioners’ parcel. Parcel 001-610-011-00 The SEV for this parcel is $45,000, which aligns perfectly with the latest sale price of $90,000. This property was last listed for sale on 31 January 2025 for $95,000 and sold for the lesser amount on 29 April 2025. While the Respondent is using this property to justify the SEV of Petitioners’ property, itis important to note the parcel 001-610-011-00 contains a substantial water view of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay. Given that parcel 001-610-011-00 has a substantial amenity that the Petitioners’ parcel does not benefit from, the comparison is not an “apples-to-apples” evaluation. The Respondent got it right when assessing this property as the SEV aligns perfectly with its arm’s length transaction that occurred in April 2025. However, its use as a guide for establishing an SEV for the Petitioners’ parcel is impractical given that parcel 001-610-011-00 has a substantial amenity that the Petitioners’ parcel lacks. Additionally, the Petitioners’ parcel was purchased just under six months earlier and there is a gross difference between the True Cash Value assigned by Bingham Township and amount of the arm's length transaction. The Township's assigned True Cash Value is over 29 percent more than the Petitioners’ purchase price. These values should be reasonably close to one another as is the case with parcel 001-610-011-00. Parcel 001-610-016-00 (parcel 016) This parcel presents a unique scenario as itis owned by the owner of the immediately adjacent parcel, 001-610-017-00 (parcel 017). Parcel 016 was purchased by the owner of parcel 017 on
Page 2
29 March 2022. Parcel 017 was purchased on 17 June 2021. Given the ownership adjacency and date of the purchase of parcel 016, two items merit consideration. The firstis that the owner of parcel 017 likely had a heightened interest in purchasing parcel 016, given its adjacency, thus effectively creating a large, contiguous property owned by a single owner. This, by nature, would increase the amount of money the parcel 017 owner would be willing to pay. Unlike prospectively buying a “stand-alone” parcel, one would be less inclined to walk away from a purchase if there was an interest in creating a larger contiguous ownership of two parcels where the adjacent parcel was already owned by the prospective purchaser. Additionally, the seller of parcel 016 likely knew who was making an offer on it as that information is disclosed on Real Estate Buy Sell Agreements. Given this information, the seller may have been less likely to reduce the price. Itis reasonable to assume that the purchase price of parcel 016 was inflated given a likely heightened interest in owning it. The second consideration relates to the purchase date of parcel 016. The country was still in the throes of the COVID pandemic at that time and property purchase prices were increasing dramatically. This, too, could have led to an inflated price. Petitioners’ Parcel 001-610-014-00 The Petitioners’ purchase of parcel 001-610-014-00 was an arm’s length transaction that reflected the fair market value in November 2024. A willing seller and a willing buyer agreed on a price of $54,000. Furthermore, the selling Realtor and owner set the original sale price ($60,000) considerably lower than what the Respondent claimed as the True Cash Value. Furthermore, the Respondent's stated valuation of the parcel is not reasonably close to the actual sale price. The Bingham Township Board of Review (BOR) did not reasonably respond to Petitioners’ appeal letter dated 6 March 2025. The BOR simply stated, “no evidence to support change” and provided no rebuttal to the points made in the letter. For these reasons, Petitioners request that the SEV and Taxable value for parcel 001-610-014- 00 be revised to $27,000 retroactive to the first Notice of Assessment after Petitioners purchased the property and that excess property taxes be refunded to Petitioners. Sincerely, Wendy C. Fry Constantine S. Lekas cc: Bingham Township, c/o Barbara A. Jones via U.S. mail.
Page 3
MONTEREY HILL SUBDIVISION WITH PETITIONERS’ PARCEL AND RESPONDENT'S
SUBMITTED COMPARABLE PARCELS HIGHLIGHTED
001:610,900.00
BR 0015107015700
ES
5
Bao,
-
>
EI 001:610:007:00
r
hy
pS
011101000700,
FF
00176101012:00}
A
x
~a
|
{
001:610.009:00
MONTEREY HILL SUBDIVISION WITH PETITIONERS’ PARCEL AND RESPONDENT’S
SUBMITTED COMPARABLE PARCELS HIGHLIGHTED