Angel v Peninsula - Petition.pdf
Steven M And Caroline A Angel, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Peninsula, Respondent · 25-001654-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
25-0077
60668397.1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
Steven M. and Caroline A. Angel,
Petitioner,
v.
MTT Docket No. _______________
[Parcel No(s). 2811-609-008-00]
Peninsula Twp.,
Respondent.
_________________________/
PETITION
Steven M. and Caroline A. Angel (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, HONIGMAN LLP,
says:
1.
Petitioner's principal office address is 759 Hyslip Avenue, Westfield, NJ 07090.
Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel no(s). 2811-609-008-00
("Petitioner's Property"), at 15706 Shoreline Ct. located in Grand Traverse County, Michigan. If
this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the tax parcels are contiguous.
2.
Respondent, Peninsula Twp., assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's
Property.
3.
In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be
$1,544,334 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $1,577,600, which will result in a state equalized
value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor.
4.
Petitioner's Property is classified as Residential Real. Petitioner's Property is
presently used or available for use for residential purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's
Property was originally designed to be used for residential purposes.Page 2
2 60668397.1 5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity. 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 7. If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for Petitioner’s Property, a board of review protest was filed in March, 2025. 8. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and, (d) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.
Page 3
3 60668397.1 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order reducing the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $1,544,224 to $1,150,000, and reducing the 2025 assessed and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $1,577,600 to $1,150,000, and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. Dated: ____________________ Respectfully submitted, HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner By: _______________________________________ Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) 222 North Washington Square Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933-1800 (517) 377-0714 dstanley@honigman.com /s/ Daniel L. Stanley May 29, 2025