24-003358 Collom Living Trust v Arthur Twp.pdf

Collom Living Trust, Petitioner V Township Of Arthur, Respondent · 24-003358-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

 

Collom Living Trust, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

 

Arthur Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING 2025 TAX YEAR 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Sean M. Mulchay, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic Hearing 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

April 22, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Don Collom, Sandra Wright, and Kelly 

Karbowski 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: William Strouse 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable 

value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 18-012-030-100-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$141,800

$70,900

$33,965

 

The 2025 tax year is DISMISSED. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 22, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on September 6, 2024.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 2 of 11 

 

The amount of the SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at 

issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the 

property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the 

lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property 

(i.e., property not previously assessed).10 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 

10 See MCL 211.34d.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 3 of 11 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 18-012-030-100-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$142,000

$71,000

$33,695

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, 7, and 13 of the docket 

maintained in this case.11 

 

No evidence was excluded. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that SEV increased 40% from 2023 to 2024 even though this does not match purchase 

offers he has received. 

 

At the hearing, Mr. Collom testified that he has owned the subject property since 1968, 

and the Township increased the value by nearly 41% for the 2024 tax year. Other 

comparable properties within the Township did not increase by the same amount. The 

subject property has no road access, and wetlands cover approximately 90% of the 80 

acres. Mr. Collom is unable to use the property for residential or agricultural purposes. 

The subject property does not receive any Township services like police, fire protection, 

or road maintenance. Respondent’s comparables are located in different townships and 

appear to have road access, and Respondent’s comparables have differing amounts of 

wetlands. Petitioner submitted an appraisal that values the subject property at 

$141,800 in support of his value contention. The appraisal is based on other 

comparable, land locked properties in the county. 

 

Petitioner’s appraiser, Mr. Karbowski, also testified in support of the appeal, indicating 

all three sales in the appraisal had issues with road frontage. These comparable 

properties either sat along a seasonal road or did not sit along a road maintained by the 

county. The three sales were located 18 miles to 22 miles from the subject property. 

The terrain of the three comparables consisted mostly of wetlands, similar to the subject 

property. In terms of the adjustments, Mr. Karbowski testified that he made adjustments 

to account for the size differences between the comparables and the subject property. 

The sale price for each property was divided by the total acreage, with the rate then 

being applied as an adjustment based on the difference in site area. Comparable 1 was 

adjusted upward and Comparable 3 was adjusted downward. Mr. Karbowski made no 

adjustments based on the sale dates, as he does not typically apply time adjustments 

when the sale involves vacant land. 

 

On rebuttal, Mr. Collom testified that the subject property cannot be developed based 

on the existence of statutorily protected wetlands on the property. Petitioner is disputing 

the increase in the assessed value (AV) considering the neighboring properties have 

not seen a similar increase. In terms of hunting, access to the property is limited, with 

 

11 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 4 of 11 

 

Petitioner only being able to access approximately 30% of the subject property because 

of the river and the creek. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year(s) at issue: 

 

Parcel Number: 18-012-030-100-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$254,400

$127,200

$33,695

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 10, 14 and 15 of the docket 

maintained in this case.12 

 

No evidence was excluded. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends 

that most of the properties in the residential class that are over forty acres have a TCV 

of $3,180 per acre. Respondent also has comparables with average sale prices of 

$3,180 per acre. The property adjacent to the subject property is fifty-three acres at a 

TCV of $3,180 per acre. 

 

During the hearing, Respondent’s assessor testified that the market for the subject 

property includes an Amish population, and properties within the township are seeing 

development even when the properties have swampland. Property is being sold 

sometimes without being put on the market. Properties have not been selling for less 

than $3,000 per acre over the last five to nine years. Arthur Township has mostly 

agricultural and residential land that is either being farmed or used for recreational 

purposes. Respondent’s comparables included a property that was logged a couple of 

years prior, leaving it filled with brush. The property also had other development issues, 

and it still sold for $3,500 per acre. The sales relied on by Respondent were in either 

Sheridan Township or Arthur Township. 

 

In terms of its evidence, Respondent’s assessor clarified that the improvements listed 

for Comparable A were added after the sale date. Respondent also testified that no 

adjustments were made to the comparables, and the assessor was simply relying on 

the sale prices for these properties. Respondent also confirmed that the land sales 

study was not submitted in this case, although the assessor testified that the properties 

in the land study were submitted as part of this appeal. 

 

In closing, Respondent’s assessor claimed that property subject to development 

limitations or is otherwise not buildable can still be used for hunting. Sheridan 

Township, which neighbors Arthur Township, is seeing an increase in residential 

 

12 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 5 of 11 

 

development and residents of these townships typically stay in the area over multiple 

generations. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. The subject property is located at S. Cornwell Avenue in Clare County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 

3. The subject property consists of 80 acres of unimproved land. 

4. In support of their value contention, Petitioner submitted various offers to 

purchase the subject property. These offers to purchase occurred during the 

2022 and 2024 calendar years. 

5. Petitioner submitted an appraisal, valuing the subject property as of December 

31, 2023, at $141,800. The appraisal relied on the following sales: 

1. Off Huckleberry Trail, Redding Township sold June 27, 2022, for $85,000 

with an adjusted price of $97,199. 

2. Off N. Stark Road, Hope Township sold on January 9, 2023, for $144,000 

with an adjusted sale price of $144,000. 

3. Off Deer Road, Bentley Township sold June 8, 2023, for $162,000 with an 

adjusted sale price of $139,577. 

6. Although Respondent generated the assessment for the subject property using 

the cost-less depreciation approach to value, Respondent did not submit the land 

value study completed in connection with the 2024 assessment. 

7. Respondent did not rely on the cost approach in support of its value contention in 

this appeal. 

8. Respondent’s submitted the followings sales data in support of its value 

contention: 

1. 11338 E. Surry Road (Parcel 18-016-024-100-02), a 79-acre parcel, that 

sold for $280,000 on September 15, 2022. 

2. S. Brand Avenue (Parcel 18-012-032-200-01), an 80-acre parcel, that sold 

for $300,000 on April 14, 2022. 

3. Browns Road (Parcel 18-012-030-300-04 and 18-012-030-300-03), a 

39.24-acre property, that sold for $175,000 on December 29, 2020. 

4. Unknown Address (Parcel 18-016-028-400-05), a 30.8-acre parcel, that 

sold for $150,000 on September 23, 2024. 

5. Unknown Address (Parcel 18-016-026-300-01) sold November 02, 2022, 

for $375,000. 

6. 9882 E. Oak Road (Parcel 18-016-027-200-15), a 41.67-acre parcel, sold 

for $180,000 on May 12, 2023. 

7. Unknown Address (Parcels 18-016-035-100-05 and 18-016-035-100-06), 

a 76.14acre property, sold for $235,000 on December 2, 2022. 

8. Athey Avenue (Parcel 18-012-027-300-02), a 39-acre parcel, sold for 

$240,000 on July 10, 2024. 

9. Respondent submitted three property record cards as supportive of its valuation 

of the subject property:

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 6 of 11 

 

1. Parcel 18-012-030-200-05, measuring 39.5 acres, with a TCV of $3,180 

per acre. 

2. Parcel 18-012-030-200-04, measuring 39.5 acres, with a TCV of $3,180 

per acre. 

3. Parcel 18-012-030-100-02, measuring 53 acres, with a TCV of $3,180 per 

acre. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the subject property’s assessment for the 2025 

tax year is included in this proceeding.13 Pursuant to MCL 205.737(3), Petitioner “has 

the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”14 “This burden 

encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not shift 

during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, 

which may shift to the opposing party.”15 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an 

independent determination of value,16 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this 

duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with 

evidence.”17 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to 

challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an 

independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”18 Indeed, the Tribunal’s 

factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.19 

Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”20 it 

may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner 

fails to meet the burden of going forward.21 

 

 

13 See MCL 205.737(5)(b) and TTR 273. 

14 Id. 

15 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 

16 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 

17 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued 

August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333) citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App 379, 408-

410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998). 

18 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of 

the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See 

also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . . 

for the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still 

make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike 

the plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward 

with evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of 

the true cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination 

except that provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to 

hire its own appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 

19 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); 

20 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 

21 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354-355 and Great Lakes v City of 

Ecorse, 227 Mich App at 408-410.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 7 of 11 

 

“The ‘substantial evidence test’ has been defined as evidence which a reasoning mind 

would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. While it consists of more than a 

mere scintilla of evidence it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the 

evidence.”22 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of 

the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”23 The “thing to be proven” in this case is the TCV 

of the property at issue. TCV is defined as “the usual selling price at the place where 

the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price 

that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as 

otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.”24 TCV is traditionally determined 

using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.25 

“Variations of these approaches and entirely new methods may be useful if found to be 

accurate and reasonably related to the fair-market value of the subject property.”26 

 

In this case, Petitioner did not provide a value contention for the 2025 tax year. 

Furthermore, the evidence that Petitioner did submit is not sufficient to meet the burden 

of going forward for its appeal of the subject property for the 2025 tax year. Although 

Petitioner submitted offers to purchase the subject property received during the 2024 

calendar year, Petitioner did not offer any testimony related to the offers to purchase. 

Generally speaking, this type of evidence is not considered probative on the issue of 

TCV because it is highly speculative. For example, at least one of the offers to 

purchase submitted by Petitioner indicated that the offer price was subject to change 

based on the outcome of an inspection. For several other offers, the purchase 

agreements indicated that the buyer had the right to cancel or terminate the agreement 

during the due diligence process or prior to closing. Given that Petitioner’s 

documentary evidence was not probative of the TCV of the subject property as of 

December 31, 2024, and Petitioner did not offer any testimony related to value of the 

subject property for the 2025 tax year, the burden of going forward did not shift to 

Respondent. As a result, the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent determination of 

value was not triggered. Thus, involuntary dismissal of the 2025 tax year is warranted. 

 

As for the 2024 tax year, the Tribunal notes that a proceeding before it is original, 

independent, and de novo.27 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by 

competent, material, and substantial evidence.28 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax 

[T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the 

circumstances of the individual case.”29 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the 

 

22 Russo v Dep't of Licensing & Regul, 119 Mich App 624, 631; 326 NW2d 583, 587 (1982). See also 

Dow Chem Co v Dep't of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 

23 Goff v Bil–Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507, 514 n 5; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), overruled on 

other grounds in Mudel v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), quoting Black's 

Law Dictionary (6th ed). See also Moore v Prestige Painting, 277 Mich App 437; 745 NW2d 816 (2007). 

24 MCL 211.27(1). 

25 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 

26 Id. 

27 MCL 205.735a(2). 

28 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v 

Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 

29 Antisdale, 420 Mich at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 

699 (1966).

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 8 of 11 

 

three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, 

the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.30 

 

TCV is properly determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, 

income and market.31 Each of these methodologies will be discussed below, with the 

exception of the income approach, which was not cited or relied upon by either party 

and appears to be inapplicable to the subject property, which is not an income-

producing property. Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best 

use of the property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal 

finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use for purposes of the TCV 

determination is continued use as residential. 

 

Cost Approach 

 

The cost approach “is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements 

and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.”32 Further, it is more 

useful when “a lack of market activity limits the usefulness of the sales comparison 

approach” and it is “especially persuasive when land value is well supported and the 

improvements are new or suffer only minor depreciation . . . .”33 In this case, Petitioner 

did not provide any evidence of value using the cost approach. 

 

Respondent, on the other hand, did offer some evidence of value under the cost 

approach. Respondent noted that it calculated the subject property’s assessment using 

the mass appraisal, cost-less-depreciation approach to value. Respondent provided the 

2024 property record for the subject property, which indicates a rate of $3,180 per acre. 

Additionally, Respondent also submitted three property record cards for adjacent 

parcels, including one owned by Petitioner, that also had the same land value rate as 

the subject property. However, Respondent did not submit the land sales that were 

used in determining the land value for the subject property or offer any testimony about 

how the land sales were reviewed, analyzed, or considered as part of developing the 

land value. Without this information, the Tribunal cannot find Respondent’s cost 

approach credible or reliable.34 As a result, the Tribunal gives no weight to 

Respondent’s cost approach. 

 

Sales Comparison Approach 

 

“The sales comparison approach is most useful when a number of similar properties 

have recently been sold or are currently for sale in the subject property’s market.”35 

 

30 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 

636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 

31 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 

32 Appraisal Institute: The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago, Appraisal Institute, 15th ed, 2020), p. 36. 

33 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 530. 

34 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265; 362 NW2d 632 (1984), wherein the Supreme Court 

noted that the Tribunal’s findings must be supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole 

record. Id. at 277. 

35 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 36.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 9 of 11 

 

Petitioner submitted an appraisal valuing the subject property as of December 31, 2023. 

As an initial matter, Tribunal notes that appraisal reports are not conclusive evidence of 

value, and each must be evaluated on an individual basis to determine both reliability 

and relevance for the tax years at issue. Petitioner’s appraisal valuing the property as 

of December 31, 2023, relied on the sales comparison approach to support their 

contention of value. Petitioner’s appraisal examined three properties that sold between 

June 2022 and June 2023 and made adjustments to the sale prices based on the size 

of sales comparables compared to the subject property. Although the appraisal did not 

adjust the sales prices for the comparables to account for differences in the market 

between the sale date and the valuation date at issue in this case, Petitioner’s appraiser 

credibly testified at the hearing about the lack of these types of adjustments for vacant 

land sales. The appraiser’s adjustments appear reasonable and are sufficiently 

explained and supported overall. Given the above, the Tribunal finds this appraisal to 

be reliable evidence of the property’s value as of December 31, 2023. 

 

In terms of Petitioner’s other evidence, Tribunal discussed this evidence relative to the 

2025 tax year. For the 2024 tax year, the same analysis holds true; offers to purchase 

are not considered probative on the issue of TCV. In this case, all of the offers to 

purchase, except for one, occurred after the December 31, 2023 valuation date. Thus, 

the Tribunal places no reliance on this evidence in determining the property’s TCV for 

the 2024 tax year. 

 

Respondent offered a variety of evidence to support its value contention. Similar to 

Petitioner, Respondent also submitted an offer to purchase a 39-acre parcel in Clare 

County. However, as noted above, the Tribunal finds this type of evidence not 

probative of the subject property’s TCV for the tax year at issue and thus further 

discussion about the unreliability of this evidence is unnecessary. 

 

Respondent also cited the sale of eight properties as support for its value contention. 

The sales relied on by Respondent occurred between 2020 and 2024, and Respondent 

did not offer any evidence or testimony about what adjustments, if any, may be 

necessary to adjust the sale prices to account for differences between the sale date and 

valuation date of this case. Unlike Petitioner’s appraiser, Respondent did not offer any 

sort of explanation about why adjustments were not necessary. Further, while 

Respondent provided the record cards for these sales, Respondent provided limited 

testimony about the makeup of the properties involved in these sales. The Tribunal 

notes that, based on the photographs on the property record cards, several of the 

properties may not be vacant land and it was unclear if these improvements were 

accounted for as part of the sale price. Finally, and most importantly, Respondent failed 

to adjust their comparables for differences between the properties and “the comparative 

techniques of analysis applied in the sales comparison approach are fundamental to the 

valuation process.”36 The information on record is not sufficient to establish that the 

 

36 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 15th ed. 2020) p. 351 

(emphasis added). “Comparative analysis . . . focuses on similarities and differences that affect value, 

called elements of comparison, which may include variations in property rights, financing terms,

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 10 of 11 

 

properties are sufficiently similar to the subject to properly be considered comparable, 

or what, if any, adjustments would be required to make the sales prices indicative of the 

subject’s TCV. 

 

Reconciliation of Value 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner’s evidence represents the most 

reliable evidence of value for the subject property for the 2024 tax year. More 

specifically, based on the testimony and evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that 

Petitioner’s December 31, 2023 appraisal provides the best evidence of TCV or “usual 

selling price” within the meaning of MCL 211.27 for the 2024 tax year. Giving 

appropriate weight and consideration to the evidence in light of the foregoing 

discussion, the Tribunal finds that a TCV of $141,800 is supported for the subject 

property. Because the proposed SEV exceeds the original TV for the subject property, 

the 2024 TV for the subject property will remain at $33,965. 

 

With respect to the 2025 tax year, as noted above, Petitioner did not offer sufficient or 

material evidence to meet the burden of going forward for the 2025 tax year. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the 2025 tax year is DISMISSED. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken 

based on this decision. 

 

After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the 

exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: 

 

a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final 

Decision; 

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final 

Decision; or 

c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other 

action as is necessary and appropriate. 

 

EXCEPTIONS 

 

The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, 

by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing 

why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must 

be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any 

matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. 

 

conditions of sale, market conditions, locational influences, and physical characteristics, among others.” 

Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003358 

Page 11 of 11 

 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of 

service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing 

party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the 

opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service 

(i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. 

 

The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party 

to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions 

and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. 

 

If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed 

proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the 

exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _________________________________ 

Entered: June 10, 2025 

 

 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record