24-003943.pdf
Paula D Olson, Petitioner V Township Of Green, Respondent · 24-003943-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 Paula D Olson, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003943 v Case Type: Principal Residence Exemption Green Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: May 29, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Paula Olson Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: No Appearance SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT Parcel No. 5401-043-056-000 is entitled to a Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) under MCL 211.7cc. As a result, the property has a PRE of 100% for the 2024 tax year. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner did not receive a BOR decision, denial notice, or change notice regarding her PRE status from Respondent. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on October 22, 2024, and Respondent failed to file an answer. On December 10, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for failing to file an answer and extended the time to cure the default on January 7, 2025. Respondent failed to cure its default; therefore, the Tribunal scheduled and conducted a default hearing in this case. ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s property qualifies for a PRE under MCL 211.7cc. A petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to an exemption.1 1 ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003943 Page 2 of 6 As for the applicable statutory law: MCL 211.7cc provides that: A principal residence is exempt from the tax levied by a local school district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under . . . MCL 380.1211, if an owner of that principal residence claims an exemption as provided in this section. MCL 211.7dd provides that: Principal residence means the 1 place where an owner of the property has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home to which, whenever absent, he or she intends to return and that shall continue as a principal residence until another principal residence is established. . . . Principal residence includes only that portion of a dwelling or unit in a multiple-unit dwelling that is subject to ad valorem taxes and that is owned and occupied by an owner of the dwelling or unit. . . . Principal residence also includes all of an owner’s unoccupied property classified as residential that is adjoining or contiguous to the dwelling subject to ad valorem taxes and that is owned and occupied by the owner. Contiguity is not broken by a road, a right-of- way, or property purchased or taken under condemnation proceedings by a public utility for power transmission lines if the 2 parcels separated by the purchased or condemned property were a single parcel prior to the sale or condemnation. . . . Principal residence also includes any portion of a dwelling or unit of an owner that is rented or leased to another person as a residence as long as that portion of the dwelling or unit that is rented or leased is less than 50% of the total square footage of living space in the dwelling or unit. MCL 211.7dd also provides that: Owner means any of the following: (i) A person who owns property or who is purchasing property under a land contract. (ii) A person who is a partial owner of property. (iii) A person who owns property as a result of being a beneficiary of a will or trust or as a result of intestate succession. (iv) A person who owns or is purchasing a dwelling on leased land. (v) A person holding a life lease in property previously sold or transferred to another. (vi) A grantor who has placed the property in a revocable trust. (vii) The sole present beneficiary of a trust if the trust purchased or acquired the property as a principal residence for the sole present beneficiary of the trust, and the sole present beneficiary of the trust is totally and permanently disabled. As used in this subparagraph, "totally and permanently disabled" means disability as defined in section 216 of title II of the social security act, 42 USC 416, without regard as to whether the sole present beneficiary of the trust has reached the age of retirement.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003943 Page 3 of 6 (viii) A cooperative housing corporation. (ix) A facility as defined by former 1976 PA 440 and registered under the continuing care community disclosure act, 2014 PA 448, MCL 554.901 to 554.993. MCL 211.7dd(b) provides that: “‘Person’ for purposes of defining owner as used in section 7cc means an individual.” Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the evidence.”2 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or reasoned opinion.”3 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence The exhibits offered by Petitioner(s) may be viewed at line-item entry 1 of the docket maintained in this case.4 Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 1. Evidence, filed on October 22, 2024 a. Explanatory Letter dated August 28, 2024. No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that she has lived in the township for many years. Petitioner actually first was a renter at the subject property in November 1987. She purchased the subject duplex in 2000. The property has never been used as a rental. There are five other duplexes in the subdivision which are rental properties. Petitioner initially contacted the township and then was able to speak with the deputy assessor. In turn, on August 19, 2024, Petitioner was able to speak with the assessor. Petitioner never received a PRE denial letter but instead received the Notice of Assessment. On August 26, 2024, Petitioner called the assessor again who admitted that he had not sent out the necessary paperwork to Petitioner. Next, Petitioner spoke to Ann at the PRE section of the 2 See also MCR 2.517(a). 3 Id. 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. 24-003943 Page 4 of 6 Department of Treasury. When questioned by the Tribunal, Petitioner was not aware of the PRE entry on the Notice of Assessment which shows the PRE percentage. At some point, Petitioner was able to track back through her notices to see the 100% PRE entry. Petitioner now questions whether there is a new assessor at the township who perhaps made all of the other duplexes 50% PREs. Petitioner asserts that her sister has lived in the other half of the duplex since 2000. Petitioner’s sister pays her own utilities, phone bills and renter’s insurance. Petitioner pays the property taxes though. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were found to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 20661 Ross Parkway, in Green Township and within Mecosta County. 2. The subject property is classified as Residential. 3. Petitioner is an owner of the subject property. 4. The subject property is comprised of a 2-unit duplex dwelling. 5. Petitioner first rented the subject unit in November 1987. 6. Petitioner purchased the subject duplex in 2000. 7. Petitioner occupies one unit and her sister occupies the other unit. 8. Petitioner does not charge her sister rent. 9. Prior to 2024, Petitioner had been granted a 100% PRE for the subject property. 10. Petitioner does not own any other improved properties. 11. Petitioner jointly owns vacant land with siblings which was inherited from her parents. 12. Petitioner contacted Green Township in July 2024 for information about the change in her PRE. 13. On August 19, 2024, Petitioner spoke with assessor Mike Richmond about the change in her PRE. 14. Petitioner contacted Mike Richmond on August 26, 2024 regarding a change notice letter (with appeal process). 15. Petitioner did not receive a BOR decision or notice for the change to her PRE from 100% to 50% from Respondent. 16. Subsequent to August 28, 2024, Petitioner contacted the PRE Unit of the Department of Treasury for appeal information. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: As noted, Petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject property is entitled to an exemption.5 Petitioner’s ownership and occupancy of the subject property has not changed since the date of purchase in 2000. Further, Petitioner has received a 100% PRE in previous years. Here, there is no dispute that 5 ProMed Healthcare, supra.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003943 Page 5 of 6 Petitioner owns and occupies her home. Petitioner’s property does not generate any rental income. Petitioner’s described efforts to communicate and receive documentation from Respondent is credible. Petitioner only became aware of a change in her property taxes from the summer property billing statement. Petitioner was not properly notified of the opportunity to appear before the March BOR. Further, Petitioner did not receive promised documentation after speaking with Respondent’s assessor. Therefore, Petitioner The Tribunal finds that Petitioner does qualify for a PRE for the tax year at issue. Michigan statute exempts a property from school operating taxes so long as that property is owned and occupied as the owner’s principal residence.6 Thus, to grant a PRE in this case, the Tribunal must confirm that the property is owned and occupied as the principal residence of the party claiming the exemption. Again, Petitioner’s ownership and occupancy of the residential property is unrefuted. There is no evidence on the record proving that Petitioner’s property generates rental income. Petitioner’s testimonial evidence is credible in this regard. As a matter of form and substance, Petitioner has met her burden of proof in this exemption appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner shall be granted a PRE for the 2024 tax year. JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax year(s) at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s principal residence exemption for the tax year(s) at issue within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 days of the entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall be without interest, as provided by MCL 211.7cc. It shall, however, include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. 6 See MCL 211.7cc
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003943 Page 6 of 6 A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By Date Entered: June 27, 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