05._Property_Tax_Appeal_Answer_Form_Valuation_Poverty_Classification.d1ebb6c4-5390-4536-bb54-7504aa527f5a.pdf
Mark Odland, LaRae Odland, Petitioners V Township Of South Haven, Respondent · 25-003033-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 ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-003033 Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Township Of South Haven (VAN BUREN) First Name Don M.I. Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government Jollay Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 16961 Lakeview dr City or Town Vandalia State Michigan ZIP Code 49095 Telephone Number 815-546-8288 Fax Number E-mail Address Don@assessingsolutions.com Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Don M.I. Last Name Jollay Firm Name (if any) N/A Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 09761 Blue Star Memorial Hwy City or Town South Haven State Michigan ZIP Code 49090 Telephone Number 8155468288 Fax Number E-mail Address Don@assessingsolutions.com Section 3: Subject Property Information Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? Yes Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. N/A Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 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, Notice of Uncapping, or Assessment Change Notice) with this Small Claims Answer, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Respondent, Township of South Haven, by and through its Assessor, Don Jollay, submits the following Answer to the Petition filed by Mark and LaRae Odland (“Petitioners”) regarding the 2025 assessment of the above-referenced property. ________________________________________ 1. Jurisdiction and Background 1. Respondent admits that Petitioners are the owners of the subject property located at 76676 Wood Crest Court, South Haven Township, Van Buren County, Michigan. 2. The subject parcel, identified as Parcel No. 80-17-148-011-00, is classified as residential real property. 3. The 2025 assessment as established by the Township Board of Review reflects: o Assessed (SEV): $640,667 o Taxable Value: $607,597 o Implied True Cash Value (TCV): $1,281,334 4. Respondent admits that Petitioners filed a timely appeal before the March Board of Review and subsequently filed this Petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal. ________________________________________ 2. Petitioners’ Contentions 5. Petitioners contend the subject property’s true cash value is $1,100,000, based on a July 14, 2025 appraisal prepared by Appraisal One Company, L.L.C. 6. Petitioners assert this equates to an assessed value (SEV) of $550,000 and a taxable value of $550,000. 7. Respondent denies that the market value of the subject property is limited to $1,100,000 and denies that the assessment is excessive or inequitable. ________________________________________ 3. Respondent’s Position 8. Respondent states that the current assessment accurately reflects 50% of the property’s fair market value as of December 31, 2024, consistent with the requirements of the Michigan Constitution (Art. IX, §3) and MCL 211.27a. 9. The subject property consists of a high-quality, newly constructed single-family residence situated on 4.94 acres with a guest apartment, two garages, 2,872 square feet above grade, and superior amenities, including decks, porches, and finished lower level space. 10. The appraiser’s report identifies the property as Quality Rating Q2 and Condition C1, signifying “high quality” design and construction. 11. Petitioners’ own appraisal relies on comparable sales that include: • 13100 Deer Creek Drive – sold for $850,000 • 7241 Pacific Avenue – sold for $1,335,000 • 336 Preserve Drive – sold for $975,000 The analysis indicates a range from $975,000 to $1,335,000, with adjustments that yield a reconciled value of $1,100,000. 12. Respondent asserts that this range supports, rather than contradicts, the Board’s true cash value determination of approximately $1,281,334, particularly given current market trends in South Haven Township and the property’s superior size, acreage, and features. 13. The appraisal’s reliance on comparable properties located several miles from the subject and adjusted up to 19% gross further suggests that the valuation may understate the market’s willingness to pay for such a high-quality home in this area. 14. Respondent also notes the appraiser found the market to be “stable to appreciating”, with low inventory and increasing construction activity, reinforcing the likelihood that actual market value exceeds the petitioner’s estimate. 15. Accordingly, the current SEV of $640,667 (TCV $1,281,334) is reasonable and potentially conservative relative to the market evidence available. ________________________________________ 4. Equity and Uniformity 16. Respondent maintains that the subject’s assessment is uniform and equitable with comparable properties in the Cottages at Woodcrest development and surrounding South Haven Township area. 17. Comparable assessments of similar newly constructed or high-quality lake-adjacent properties reflect SEVs in the $600,000–$700,000 range, consistent with the subject’s assigned value. 18. The subject property’s size, quality, and site improvements justify its assessment level within the broader neighborhood context. ________________________________________ 5. Conclusion and Requested Relief 19. Petitioners have not presented competent and sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the Township’s assessment is accurate and equitable. 20. The Township’s assessment reflects the fair market value of the subject property as of the tax day and complies with all applicable Michigan statutes and equalization standards. 21. Evidence, including Petitioners’ own appraisal, indicates that the property’s true cash value may, in fact, exceed the assessed valuation on the roll. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: a. Affirm the 2025 assessment as established by the South Haven Township Board of Review; b. Alternatively, upon hearing and evidence, adjust the valuation upward if the Tribunal finds the true cash value exceeds the current assessment; and c. Grant such other relief as is just and equitable. ________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH HAVEN By and through its Assessor
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? March*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? If yes, cite the Board’s authority. Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No If yes, explain. Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? If so, what is the issue date? MI IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS Did Petitioner request the exemption at the BOR? If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: Tax Year(s) denied: List the date the exemption was denied: What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt?
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY What do you believe the classification should be: Section 6: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Identification Number: 80-17-148-011-00 Classification of Property: Real Residential Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 640,667 Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 607,597 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 1,300,000 Multiply the True Cash Value by. 5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 650,000 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: /s/ Don Jollay