24-003589 POJ.pdf

Judy L Gentner, Petitioner V Township Of Burtchville, Respondent · 24-003589-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 

 

Judy L Gentner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

 

Burtchville Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

May 20, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Judy Gentner 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Shelly Baumeister 

 

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: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$759,000

$379,500

$379,500

2025

$851,800

$425,900

$391,264

 

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 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 8, 2024. 

 

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 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 2 of 8 

 

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 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$520,936

$260,468

$260,468

2025

$520,936

$260,468

$260,468

 

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. 24-003589 

Page 3 of 8 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, 9, and 11 of the docket 

maintained in this case.11 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends they are appealing 

the decision of the 2024 BOR. Petitioner contends that 5% inflation rate was improperly 

applied because they bought the home a month before tax day. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner read the contents of their April 28, 2025 letter to 

the Tribunal in most part. Petitioner contends that, per the State Tax Commission 

(STC), Respondent should be using TCV and not a capped value. 

 

On rebuttal, Petitioner contends that they calculated the SEV based on sales. However, 

the STC indicated that it should be done by the aggregate value of the properties. 

Petitioner also cannot reconcile differences in land value for next-door neighbors in the 

assessment. Petitioner contends that the drain is on the property next to the one 

described above, not the property itself. 

 

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: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$758,902

$379,500

$379,500

2025

$851,800

$425,900

$391,264

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 5 and 10 of the docket 

maintained in this case.12 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Respondent contends that the subject is 

assessed uniformly within the township. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Respondent contends that there is a misconception about 

uncapping, assessed value (AV), and TV. Respondent relies on sales documentation to 

support the 2024 and 2025 assessment. It is not an acceptable practice to use the 

subject sales price to set the AV. While the subject sale occurred around November 30, 

2023, the 2024 assessment must be based on sales in the area. The 2023 sale 

triggered an uncapping in 2024, meaning SEV and TV are the same value. The 2025 

assessed value increased based on market sales, and the 2025 TV increased based on 

the rate of inflation. Respondent contends they only communicated with Petitioner 

through one conversation and through written materials submitted to the Tribunal. 

Respondent contends that its documentation supports its assessments. 

 

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. 

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. 24-003589 

Page 4 of 8 

 

On rebuttal, Respondent contends that there was an adjustment on the property 

identified by Petitioner, 6500 Lakeshore, where the right of way from the adjacent drain 

spills into the parcel because of erosion, creating limited use on the edge. The 

shoreline did change, affecting a few feet of that property. Other than the adjustment to 

95%, Respondent contends the same front foot rate is used on that parcel. Petitioner’s 

rate comparison also erred in using property record cards from both 2024 and 2025 

when rates changed. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

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

 

1. The subject property is located at 6486 Lakeshore Rd., Burtchville Township, 

Saint Clair County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential. 

3. Petitioner purchased the subject property in November 2023 for $750,000. 

4. The parties submitted comparable sales grid valuing the subject using the sales 

comparison approach. 

5. Respondent submitted the 2024 and 2025 property record cards valuing the 

subject using the cost approach. 

6. Respondent submitted the land sales and economic condition factor (ECF) 

studies supporting the property record cards. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

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

 

A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.13 The 

Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial 

evidence.14 

 

In Michigan, property shall be assessed at 50% of its TCV.15 TCV means the usual 

selling price of that property.16 “It 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.”17 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common 

approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison 

or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.18 

 

13 MCL 205.735a(2). 

14 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). 

15 MCL 211.27a(1). 

16 MCL 211.27(1). 

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

699 (1966). 

18 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.

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 5 of 8 

 

The three most common approaches for determining true cash value are 

the capitalization-of-income approach, the sales-comparison or market 

approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach. However, variations 

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

be accurate and reasonably related to fair market value. Regardless of 

which approach is used, the value determined by the Tax Tribunal must 

be the usual price for which the property would sell. The task of approving 

or disapproving specific valuation methods or approaches has fallen to the 

courts because the Legislature did not direct that specific methods be 

used.19 

 

Here, 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 is continued use as single-family 

residential property. 

 

Before turning to the three approaches to valuation, the Tribunal notes that Petitioner 

purchased the subject property for $750,000 in November 2023. It is not disputed that 

the purchase was an arm’s-length transaction. The Tribunal notes that a property’s 

purchase price is not presumptive evidence of that property’s TCV.20 However, a sale 

may be considered as evidence of a market sale if appropriate given the evidence 

submitted.21 Here, the evidence supports a finding that the sale is good evidence of 

value and shall be considered in the reconciliation of value. Petitioner contends that 

they paid over market value for it, but the correct determination of market value is not an 

issue to be considered until the reconciliation. It is undisputed that the transaction was 

market-based. 

 

Neither party provided an income approach to valuation, as the subject property is 

owner-occupied single-family residential property. 

 

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.”22 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 . . . .”23 For tax years 2024 and 

2025, Respondent submitted the subject property record card and sketch. Respondent 

also submitted the land sales and ECF studies used to support the record cards’ value 

conclusions. Petitioner did not provide any evidence to rebut the physical 

 

19 See Great Lakes Div of Nat Steel Corp v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379, 390; 576 NW2d 667, 673 

(1998) (citations omitted). 

20 See MCL 211.27(6). 

21 See President Inn Properties, LLC v City of Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625, 640; 806 NW2d 342 

(2011). 

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

23 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 530.

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 6 of 8 

 

characteristics described on the record card. Petitioner’s contention that the subject 

SEV was set at half of the subject’s sales price is rebutted by Respondent’s property 

record card, which shows the detailed method in which the SEV was calculated for each 

tax year. Further, as supported by Respondent’s evidence, the county equalization 

factors for residential property show a rapidly increasing market. That increase 

supports Respondent’s contention that the rising property value is based on increases 

in market sales. 

 

Regarding Petitioner’s contention that 5% inflation was improperly applied because the 

home was purchased a day prior to tax day, the Tribunal finds that the contention, while 

misunderstanding the mandatory and automatic calculation of TV under MCL 211.27a, 

is in fact also incorrect. The 5% inflation rate was not applied to Petitioner’s TV in tax 

year 2024. Instead, the TV was set equal to SEV as required in the tax year following 

the year of a transfer of ownership.24 No weight is given to Petitioner’s contention. 

Petitioner also contends that Respondent erred in calculating the 2024 land value. 

Petitioner contends that the subject and next-door property have different front footage 

rates. However, Respondent’s representative credibly rebutted that statement and 

indicated that the properties receive the same front foot rate and that the difference in 

per-foot value resulted from an obsolescence factor applied to the neighboring property 

to account for the effect of a county drain. However, Respondent also failed to account 

for how the subject front foot rate of $4,300 applied to Petitioner’s 44-foot frontage 

yields a total land value of $211,468. Instead, the Tribunal finds that, absent data to the 

contrary, Petitioner’s total land value for tax year 2024 shall be $189,200. 

 

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.”25 

 

Petitioner submitted comparable sales grids containing properties they claim are similar 

in terms of lot depth, area, common main road, view, beach, and sea wall. Petitioner 

relies heavily on the comparable sale at 6500 Lakeshore, which is located next door to 

the subject and sold for $695,000 in June 2022. Petitioner applied 57.3% gross 

adjustments for differences in construction materials, house square footage, bath, 

walkout basement, fireplace, lot width, garage, and camera/security, resulting in an 

adjusted sales price of $516,122. The Tribunal finds that Petitioner’s adjustments are 

based on general broad market information and not data designed to reflect buyer 

preferences in the subject market. The 2022 sale indicates it was an estate sale, and it 

is unclear to what extent the estate may have acted in a manner different than a 

reasonably prudent seller due to pressure to sell the property. 

 

Petitioner also relies on the comparable sales at 6008 Wildrose, 6232 Wildrose, and 

8514 Lakeshore. Petitioner applied 13.5% gross adjustments to 60087 Wildrose for 

differences in square feet, basement, lot width, and garage, resulting in an adjusted 

 

24 MCL 211.27a. 

25 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 36.

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 7 of 8 

 

sales price of $616,000. Petitioner applied 52.4% gross adjustments to 6232 Wildrose 

for differences in house square footage, bath, walkout basement, fireplace, lot width, 

garage, and hot tub/spa/irrigation system, resulting in an adjusted sales price of 

$495,842. Petitioner applied 73.7% gross adjustments to 8514 Lakeshore for 

differences in square feet, bath, fireplace, lot width, garage, and hot 

tub/pool/spa/irrigation, resulting in an adjusted sales price of $524,870. The latter two 

sales are wholly incomparable to the subject due to the very large gross adjustment 

percentages required to reconcile the value-influencing differences of those properties. 

With respect to 6008 Wildrose, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner’s adjustments are 

based on general broad market information and not data designed to reflect buyer 

preferences in the subject market. Notwithstanding, the sale at 6008 Wildrose is found 

to be sufficiently similar to the subject so as to have some evidentiary value. 

 

Respondent also submitted a comparable sales grid. The grid is supported by parcel 

data. The grid contains five comparable sales. The grid is not properly supported 

because it is unclear who prepared the evidence. There is no testimony in support of 

the approach. No weight is given to the comparable sales grid submitted by 

Respondent. 

 

Reconciliation of Value 

 

Overall, the greatest weight is given to Respondent’s cost approach. The record cards 

and supporting documentation are the best evidence of value, as they incorporate a full 

spectrum of market activity across the relevant sales periods. The various comparable 

sales grid submitted by the parties are less well supported. They may lack sufficient 

details regarding whether those sales were market-based transactions, and most of the 

adjustments appear to be based on broader market data rather than local data. Some 

weight can be given to the subject property sale and to Petitioner’s comparable sale at 

6008 Wildrose, but in the context of the weight given to Respondent’s cost approach, 

those sales, particularly the subject sale, are found to properly support Respondent’s 

cost approach. No weight can be given to 6008 Wildrose for tax year 2025, as the sale 

is too far removed from the relevant date of valuation and not adjusted for market 

conditions. As a result, the SEV adopted by Respondent’s 2024 and 2025 March BOR 

are found to be the best evidence of value on the record. 

 

Regarding TV, because the subject property incurred a transfer of ownership in 2023, 

the 2024 TV is set equal to SEV.26 The 2025 TV is the 2024 TV plus the inflation rate 

multiplier of 3.1%. The 2024 and 2025 TV as set by the BOR are affirmed. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

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

based on this decision. 

 

 

26 MCL 211.27a.

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 8 of 8 

 

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. 

 

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 17, 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