24-003520 Piper v Weldon Twp.pdf
Debra Z Piper, Petitioner V Township Of Weldon, Respondent · 24-003520-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 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 Debra Z Piper, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Weldon Township, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Sean M. Mulchay, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Hearing Held on: April 22, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Rachel Hillegonds, Debra Piper, and David Detman Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Wyatt Crawford PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s taxable value (TV) was not properly adjusted under MCL 211.27a. The subject property’s TV for the tax year at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 12-101-004-00 Year TV 2024 $261,204 2025 $269,301 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 June 13, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 4, 2024. The amount of state equalized value (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
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 2 of 10 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 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).3 2. Whether the changes to the property constitute additions under Proposal A or nonconsideration under Mathieu-Gast Home Improvement Act. MCL 211.27(2) states as follows: The assessor shall not consider the increase in true cash value that is a result of expenditures for normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance in determining the true cash value of property for assessment purposes until the property is sold. For the purpose of implementing this subsection, the assessor shall not increase the construction quality classification or reduce the effective age for depreciation purposes, except if the appraisal of the property was erroneous before nonconsideration of the normal repair, replacement, or maintenance, and shall not assign an economic condition factor to the property that differs from the economic condition factor assigned to similar properties as defined by appraisal procedures applied in the jurisdiction. The increase in value attributable to the items included in subdivisions (a) to (q) that is known to the assessor and excluded from true cash value must be indicated on the assessment roll. This subsection applies only to residential property. The following repairs are considered normal maintenance if they are not part of a structural addition or completion: (a) Outside painting. (b) Repairing or replacing siding, roof, porches, steps, sidewalks, or drives. (c) Repainting, repairing, or replacing existing masonry. (d) Replacing awnings. (e) Adding or replacing gutters and downspouts. (f) Replacing storm windows or doors. 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 3 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 3 of 10 (g) Insulating or weatherstripping. (h) Complete rewiring. (i) Replacing plumbing and light fixtures. (j) Replacing a furnace with a new furnace of the same type or replacing an oil or gas burner. (k) Repairing plaster, inside painting, or other redecorating. (l) New ceiling, wall, or floor surfacing. (m) Removing partitions to enlarge rooms. (n) Replacing an automatic hot water heater. (o) Replacing dated interior woodwork. (p) Installing, replacing, or repairing an alternative energy system, without regard to ownership of the system, with a generating capacity of not more than 150 kilowatts, the annual energy output of which does not exceed the annual energy consumption measured by the utility-provided electrical meter on the system to which it is connected. As used in this subdivision, "alternative energy system" means that term as defined in section 2 of the Michigan next energy authority act, 2002 PA 593, MCL 207.822. (q) Installing, replacing, or repairing a whole-home generator. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TV: Parcel Number: 12-101-004-00 Year TV 2024 $191,628 2025 $197,568 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket maintained in this case.4 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the Mathieu Gast Act was not applied by the BOR or the assessor. During the hearing, Petitioner’s attorney stated that the appeal involves 7854 Washtenaw Drive, Thompsonville, Benzie County. The issue is whether Respondent properly applied the Mathieu Gast Act in determining the 2024 TV for the subject property. Petitioner’s attorney pointed out that, regardless of whether Form 865 Request for Nonconsideration of True Cash Value of Normal Repair, Replacement and Maintenance Expenditures was submitted, the Mathieu Gast Act would still apply. 4 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.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 4 of 10 Nevertheless, Petitioner has completed and signed a copy of the form and included it for consideration as part of this appeal. Petitioner made repairs and replacements to her home in 2021 and 2022. In addition, Petitioner added square footage in the form of a one-car garage, a small laundry room, and a bump out of the first floor living room, additional bedroom and bathroom on the second floor, and a covered front entrance. While Petitioner does not dispute these as “additions,” Petitioner claims that the repairs and replacements had nothing to do with the additional square footage added to the subject property and were necessary regardless of whether the additions were added. Petitioner should not be denied Mathieu Gast treatment because she added square footage to the house at the same time as making repairs and replacements to the subject property. The increase in TV in 2022 properly reflected the increase in value due to the additions not covered by Mathieu Gast and no further additions should have been recognized. In the alternative, if it is determined that the increase in TV should have occurred, Petitioner argues that the additions should have been added in 2023 using the 2023 cost information based on the completion of the work in 2022, rather than being added in 2024. Petitioner’s attorney testified that the builder confirmed that repairs to doors, roofing, siding, walls, improvements in the kitchen, flooring, and HVAC were necessary because these items were old, beyond their useful life, and in need of replacement. The builder also confirmed that the materials were comparable in quality as to what was being replaced. The cost of the addition was no more than 33% of the total project costs. The builder indicated that less than 30% of the square footage was added to the subject property. Any item that did not previously exist, like the new windows, siding and roofing, were installed alongside the existing improvements and constituted less than 30% of any category of improvement. Petitioner’s builder believed that the 40% increase in TV for 2022 fully covered the additions. Petitioner’s affidavit is consistent with the statements from Petitioner’s builder and provides additional details about the quality of the non-consideration items. Petitioner included receipts for materials along with photographs showing the progression of replacements and the location of the additions. While the home looks different because of the additions, Petitioner argues that the appearance is also impacted by the new siding, windows and doors, all of which are covered by Mathieu Gast. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the information contained in her affidavit was largely provided by her, and the photographs and additional information about them came from Petitioner. Petitioner reviewed the affidavit prior to signing and confirmed all of the statements contained therein were accurate and true. Petitioner took the photographs that were attached to the affidavit and Petitioner added the notations on the photographs to make it clear what was being depicted. The Form 865 was prepared and completed by Petitioner. In doing so, Petitioner reviewed the overall cost of the project, along with some other itemized bills from the builder, including windows, doors and wood trim. Petitioner also included homes that are comparable to the subject property demonstrating that property values rose significantly in 2024 but that was not the case in 2023. By recognizing additions in 2024 rather than 2023, Respondent is overinflating the value. The information about
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 5 of 10 properties came from Benzie County and Crystal Mountain. The property is located at the Crystal Mountain Resort and Petitioner contacted the resort’s real estate office to determine which properties were most similar to the subject property. On rebuttal, Petitioner pointed out that the property record cards indicate that the current assessor inspected the subject property on December 4, 2021; November 7, 2022; and November 20, 2023. According to Petitioner, this indicates that Respondent was aware of the property’s condition in 2021, and the resulting increases for the 2022 tax year. Respondent’s assessor inspected the subject property four days before Petitioner’s photograph showing the property as complete in 2022. Petitioner received the 2022 Notice of Assessment and assumed that the whole addition was added. This was further supported given there was no increase in 2023. However, for 2024, Petitioner received a notice tripling the taxes for the subject property as a result of the additional bedrooms that were added. Petitioner has owned the property for 25 years, and the property needed to address the rotting siding along with issues with the roof. The property was the worst house on the block and now it is better. In closing, Petitioner’s attorney reiterated that Form 865 is not required but, to Respondent’s credit, it can be difficult to determine if Mathieu Gast applies without the form. Petitioner should still qualify for the non-consideration of the covered items even though Petitioner did not file the form after the March BOR. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year(s) at issue: Parcel Number: 12-101-004-00 Year TV 2024 $297,528 2025 $306,751 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5 and 11 of the docket maintained in this case.5 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that there were extreme changes made to the property over the course of two years. So much of the property was changed that it was difficult to recognize the scope of the changes. The BOR adjusted the amount of new, and additions added to the property for 2024. Respondent states that the BOR also corrected an error that was made by them when sketching the new construction. Given the changes already made by the 5 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. On June 10, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Requiring Information where Respondent was ordered to file and serve the 2021-2024 property record card and valuation reports for Parcel 12-101-004-00.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 6 of 10 BOR and Petitioner’s admission that the new construction was far beyond the scope of what would be considered normal for the purposes of the Mathieu Gast Act, Respondent asserts that the TV is justified. A majority of the changes that were described by Petitioner undeniably are part of the new, additions and structural alterations performed and thus exempt from the non-consideration items found in the Mathieu Gast Act. At the hearing, Respondent’s assessor testified that the Mathieu Gast form was not filed. While there is an exception to filing where the capped value addition occurred in a prior year, as was the case in this instance in 2022, Petitioner did not file the form until two years later. Respondent was deprived of the detail and scope of the work that was covered by the Mathieu Gast Act. In terms of 2023, and with no change to the property’s TV due to additions, there was a clerical error where the property was added to the assessment roll as 50% complete in 2022 to account for new construction and alterations. Respondent’s representative took over as the assessor of record going into 2023, and the completion was not added until the 2024 tax year. Respondent’s assessor indicated that some of the items are likely covered, given the nature of the extensive renovations to the structure and the ongoing construction process, Respondent’s assessor had a difficult time determining what was new versus what was repaired or replaced. Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Respondent’s assessor indicated that Form 865 was received in May 2024. At the 2024 BOR, Respondent’s assessor determined that there were not as many alterations to the structure as was initially believed, which resulted in a reduction in assessed value (AV). Respondent’s assessor confirmed that the last exterior inspection of the property occurred on November 20, 2023. In closing, Respondent’s assessor clarified that he was not the assessor of record until late February or early March 2023, and he had been working as an assessor technician and assisting the assessor of record at the time of the inspections. The initial addition that bumped the TV to $173,813 and $182,503 was only based on partial construction, so adding an inflation rate to this would not be accurate as it would not reflect the actual value of the structure. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 7854 Washtenaw Drive in Benzie County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 3. Petitioner performed renovations at the property during 2021 and 2022, including adding additional living area to the subject property. 4. Petitioner also added a single-car garage to the subject property as part of the renovations. 5. In total, Petitioner spent $700,000 renovating the subject property, with 33% of that amount attributed to the new construction at the subject property.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 7 of 10 6. Following an Order Requiring Information, Respondent provided the 2021-2024 property record cards and valuation reports for the subject property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: With respect to Petitioner’s claims related to the subject property’s TV, the Tribunal notes that, for taxes levied after 1994, the General Property Tax Act provides that the term "additions" includes omitted real property. Omitted real property is defined in MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i) as follows: As used in this subparagraph, "omitted real property" means previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment. Omitted real property does not increase taxable value as an addition unless the assessing jurisdiction has a property record card or other documentation showing that the omitted real property was not previously included in the assessment. The assessing jurisdiction has the burden of proof in establishing whether the omitted real property is included in the assessment. Omitted real property for the current and the 2 immediately preceding years, discovered after the assessment roll has been completed, must be added to the tax roll pursuant to the procedures established in section 154. For purposes of determining the taxable value of real property under section 27a, the value of omitted real property is based on the value and the ratio of taxable value to true cash value the omitted real property would have had if the property had not been omitted. Furthermore, the statute goes on to define the phrase "new construction" as follows: property not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day and not replacement construction. New construction includes the physical addition of equipment or furnishings, subject to the provisions set forth in section 27(2)(a) to (q). For purposes of determining the taxable value of property under section 27a, the value of new construction is the true cash value of the new construction multiplied by 0.50.6 In this case, Respondent provided the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 property record cards and valuation statements for the subject property. Beginning in 2022, Respondent began to recognize and add value for changes that were occurring at the property. In reviewing the record card and valuation statement, the improvements that were added to the assessment were not previously contained within the record cards for the prior year and constituted new construction. Specifically, Respondent increased the ground area from 1,395 square feet to 1,933 square feet. Respondent also added a garage and changed the porch configuration to one concrete covered porch instead of two wood covered porches. For the 2022 tax year, Respondent estimated the improvements to be 49% complete. In total, Respondent’s valuation statement 6 MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii).
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 8 of 10 indicates additions of $154,900 and losses of $101,948. For the 2023 tax year, the property was again estimated at 49% and no additions or losses were included. The TV was adjusted by 5% in accordance with MCL 211.27a. For the 2024 tax year, Respondent added $105,900 for additions. Respondent included undated photographs of the residential structure, purportedly before and after the renovations. At the hearing, Petitioner offered testimony as to the renovations that occurred at the subject property, including the fact that additional square footage was added to the property. Additionally, Petitioner’s evidentiary submissions indicate 897 square feet of living area was added along with a single-car garage. In 2022, Respondent’s cost new of the additional square footage for the residential structure, covered porch and the garage totaled $158,023. Applying the two percent depreciation and 2022 economic condition factor (ECF) of 1.770 to these costs results in a value of $274,106 (rounded down). During the hearing, Petitioner indicated that the builder estimated that approximately thirty-three percent of the total project costs ($700,000) were attributable to the additions added to the subject property. In other words, an amount of $231,000 was attributed to the additions. Given the builder’s familiarity with the project and the fact that Respondent’s assessor did not provide much in the way of testimonial evidence for the calculations in the record, the Tribunal finds Petitioner’s estimate to be reasonable under the circumstances. Although Petitioner indicates that the renovations were completed in 2022, Petitioner notes that Respondent did not increase the subject property’s TV in 2023. As indicated above, Respondent only considered the property to be 49% complete for the 2022 and 2023 tax years. Petitioner’s brief indicates that she did not object to the TV increase for the 2022 tax year (valuation date of December 31, 2021) based on the belief that the increase was due to the square footage that was added to the subject property. However, Petitioner’s brief, exhibits, and photographs show that the house updates were completed during the 2022 calendar year. Specifically, Petitioner included photographs dated September 22, 2021; October 17, 2021; and December 31, 2021, showing various stages of the construction and renovations at the subject property. As such, the Tribunal finds that Respondent’s estimate of a 49% completion for the 2022 tax year to be reasonable. However, as pointed out at the hearing, the project should have been considered fully complete for the 2023 tax year. In terms of the TV calculation, using a new construction amount of $231,000 and applying the TV formulas set forth in MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii) and MCL 211.27a, the Tribunal finds that the appropriate TV for the 2022 tax year should have been $180,820 (rounded down). This amount recognizes a 50% rate applied to the new construction amount of $231,000 ($115,500), modified by a partial construction fraction of 49% ($56,595), and added to the TV formula under MCL 211.27a (2021 TV of $120,257 x 1.033 + $56,595). Applying the same methodology for the 2023 tax year (along with the remaining 51% for the completion of the construction), the TV for the subject property should be $248,766 ($180,820 x 1.05 + $58,905). Because the property was fully complete for the 2024 and 2025 tax years, the inflation rate multiplier would be applied to the 2023 TV, resulting in a revised TV of $261,204 for 2024 and $269,301 for 2025.
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 9 of 10 Although Petitioner devoted documentary and testimonial evidence to support their argument that the property’s TV improperly included nonconsideration items, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support such a claim. On the contrary, the record card and valuation statement do not appear to include any of the replacement items referenced at the hearing or within Petitioner’s exhibits. Similarly, Petitioner’s submission of the AVs and TVs of neighboring properties are not supportive of Petitioner’s TV contention. A comparison of AVs, TVs, and their changes is not a reliable indicator of value. For example, AVs are not market indicators, but rather are the result of a mass appraisal, cost less depreciation approach to value, which includes market adjustments through the use of an ECF. Various steps go into constructing each assessment, and mere comparison of AVs discounts the numerous factors considered for each individual assessment. Moreover, no matter how similar two or more parcels of property appear to be, such comparisons can create highly misleading results since vital distinctions can be overlooked, as can the various applicable adjustments and manipulations of market-based values. Additionally, while a property’s AV is directly related to its true cash or fair market value, TV is determined pursuant to Proposal A and is calculated by multiplying the prior year’s TV by the inflation rate multiplier for the current year. Except for additions and losses to a property, annual increases in the property’s TV are limited to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, unless there is a transfer of ownership. As such, TV can vary greatly depending upon a number of factors that are not necessarily related to a property’s value, including, but not limited to the last date of sale, and the TV of one property is therefore not probative of the TV of another. Here, Petitioner did not offer any testimony about these properties other than their proximity to the subject property. Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the TV shall be adjusted for the 2024 and 2025 tax years as directed above. The 2024 TV for the subject property is $261,204, and for the 2025 tax year, the TV is $269,301. 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.
Page 10
MTT Docket No. 24-003520 Page 10 of 10 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. 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: September 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