2024 Sec 5 Reason Chronology w POS.pdf

Wayne W Gagnon Trust, Petitioner V Township Of Alpine, Respondent · 24-003832-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.

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

Wayne W. Gagnon, Petitioner 

MTT Docket #23-003074-TT 

Vs. 

MTT Docket #24-003832-TT 

Alpine Township, Respondent 

MTT Docket #25-000741-TT 

ATTACHMENT RE: SECTION 5: REASON FOR THE APPEAL 

CHRONOLOGY OF 2023, 2024, 2025 CASES 

Se 

p 22/822, 1 Lor t 20725 Fivivao I Forder 

BIG PICTURE 

To mere Tht 

T PETITES pr DEC 2024 W2bPP oF 

rE 

AVAL Zo 

1740 7 Mile is a 7,000 square foot home with outbuildings on 48 acres that are WD 

4 

due to zoning limitations. It is a Class A home on a busy road surrounded by Class Cc 

homes, including rentals, with true cash values averaging $300,000. The average person 

driving by can easily see that the residence is overbuilt by township norms. Its R-26 

CUSTOM HOME ECF is based on sales of homes clustered in homogenous well-maintained 

subdivisions several miles away, and its land is assessed based on ~2-acre parcel R-80 

PRIVATE DRIVE land sale comps. 

It has long been ripe for reevaluation and adjustment. 

Gagnon admittedly purchased the residence in a private sale, albeit one brokered by an 

exceptionally experienced real estate professional with very long and deep ties to the high- 

end home market in Alpine Township. Gagnon has protested at the 2021, 2023, 2024, and 

2025 March Board of Reviews. 

Township has told petitioner repeatedly that the township does not consider private sales 

to be valid indications of value and does not include private sales in township assessment 

studies. As a result, no part of Gagnon’s purchase has ever been reflected in a township 

ECF or Land Study of any kind, and Gagnon has been unable to gain remedy through 

normal process. 

Petitioner obtained an independent appraisal as support for a more accurate, lower 

assessment. Respondent later obtained its own independent appraisal. Paradoxically, 

Respondent's appraisal includes private sales to arrive at its conclusion—and worse yet, 

the sale data for the private sales came from the township’s land studies, directly 

contradicting what the township has been representing to petitioner. Petitioner therefore 

respectfully requests that Respondent’s appraisal either be disqualified because it 

includes private sales, or that petitioner’s original purchase price of $1,000,000 also 

be included in the court’s analysis. 

Upon review of the township vacant land sales (that include private sales), petitioner 

discovered (1) that the 2023 land study included an overbuilt home that materially reduced

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

the conclusion of the study (dropping 

the per acre value quite a bit), and (2) that the 2024 

land study had a significant math “footing” error that undermines the reliability of the 

study. When petitioner pointed out that these errors / issues would turn around in 2025 

and result in “phantom true cash value” if petitioner's 2023 record card revisions — post 

settlement — did not account for these errors, Respondent basically said “well that is your 

problem in 2025, and the court can’t make us update your record card” [to account for our 

land study deficiencies]. Petitioner understands that the court does not have jurisdiction 

to require a fair or accurate update to the 2023 record card, even if the respondent is using 

an appraisal highlighting land values, and the township has potential land study swings. 

However, petitioner contends that there is a way for the court to rule “as if” it could set 

forth the land value and the value of the house + barns in its judgement: Use John Meyer's 

single family residence appraisal TCV as the Year 2023 conclusion of fair market value. 

John Meyer’s single family residence TCV of $1,235,000 is the most fair, expedient, and 

cost-effective way 

to resolve all three cases, making best use of the time and resources of 

the tribunal, the township, and the petitioner, while ultimately still being fair to both parties. 

See 

Exhibits 

at 

tion 

7 — 

Valuation 

Information 

Furthermore, John’s single family residence appraisal offers no specific opinion on land 

value and avoids the issues in Jim Van Stensel’s appraisal. (a) John does not use private 

sales of developmental parcels in his analysis of an unsplittable residential parcel as Jim 

does, (b) John does not have data input errors on two of his sale comps as Jim does, and (c) 

John avoids the potential issues with the township's own 2023 and 2024 vacant land 

studies that are inherent in Jim’s [high] conclusion of per acre value. 

NCLUSION 

Petitioner is unclear whether 

the tribunal will: 

A. 

Combine years 2023, 2024, and 2025 into docket #23-003074-TT (this seems 

implied by Tax Tribunal Rule 273 and the “warning” on the Small Claims website that 

subsequent years’ protests will be added to existing SC cases), or 

B. 

Keep 2023 as a stand-alone docket #23-003074-TT, leaving 2024 and 2025 as part of 

docket #24-003832.

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

If the three years are combined into one case, the Judge will be able to specify TCV for 

2023, 2024, and 2025, and address TCV distortions or “phantom true cash value” as 

needed. 

However, if the years are severed and Judge is only able to issue an opinion on Year 2023 at 

this time, petitioner most respectfully requests that the Judge simply rule that John Meyer’s 

single family residence appraisal is the best TCV for overall resolution of the cases. In 

addition to being a better developed and less issue prone appraisal, the “John Meyer Year 

2023 TCV” essentially equals the 2025 value “as if” the Judge used the average of the two 

appraisals for 2023 TCV and was able to make the township more accurately report the 

land vs house/barns value on the [revised] 2023 record card, and thereby reduce 

distortions in subsequent years’ assessments. 

CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE(S) 

1. 

2017-2019 Gagnon writes letters to many Alpine Township homeowners asking if they 

want to sell their house. Two homeowners respond favorably to Gagnon’s letters. 4580 

Walker Ave. NW and 1740 7 Mile RD NW. 

2. 

Owner of 1740 7 Mile engages her stepson, a highly regarded real estate professional 

who has dealt in high-end Alpine Township real estate for over 40 years, to represent her 

in the transaction. Gagnon negotiates with both interested sellers but ends up going 

with 1740 7 Mile because the owner was prepared to move sooner. 

3. 

Gagnon signs the purchase agreement in March 2019 and closes in June 2019. 

o 

The sale price is less than the assessed value. 

e 

The [private] sale of 1740 7 Mile is not included in the 2020 or 2021 ECF studies 

developed by Alpine Township. 

e 

The [private] sale of 4580 Walker (presumably to another letter writer) is, however, 

included in a township ECF study. The [private] sale of Gagnon’s deceased mother’s 

house to a letter writer is also included in a township ECF study. 

o 

Had the sale of 1740 7 Mile been included in the township ECF study(ies), Gagnon’s 

overassessment would have been substantially cured (reduced) as part of the 

normal annual reassessment process. 

4. 

March 2021 - Gagnon appeals 2021 assessment at Board of Review. Gagnon naively 

and incorrectly argues “purchase price.” The appeal is rejected by the BOR.

10. 

11. 

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

March 2023 - Gagnon appeals 2023 assessment at BOR, arguing that: 

e 

The % Good applied to the residence is too high (90% on 19-year-old home), 

e 

The [private] sale of 1740 7 Mile was never included in Township ECF studies, but 

the private sales of Gagnon Mom house and 4580 Walker were included in ECF 

studies. Had the sale of 1740 7 Mile been in the ECF study, a fair reduction in 

assessed value TCV would have occurred, 

e 

The R-26 Custom Homes ECF neighborhood (about 3 sales per study, sale price 

averaging ~$600,000) does not accurately represent 1740 7 Mile and anyways. 

The Board rejects Gagnon’s arguments, explaining: 

e 

OurBoard doesn’t look at %Good, 

e 

Even though your [below assessed value private] home sale was not included in an 

ECF, we must have made a mistake including those other [above assessed value 

private] sales in the ECF studies, 

« 

Your analysis is bad because even though you used comps sold on the MLS, you 

used private purchase in the overall analysis, and we don’t use private sales for 

anything. 

April 2023, Gagnon obtains an independent appraisal from John Meyer. Itis a SINGLE- 

EAMILY RESIDENCE APPRAISAL and values the home at $1,235,000 as of 12/31/2022, 

for purposes of 2023 assessment. 

May 2023, Gagnon hires an attorney to present the independent appraisal 

to the 

township and negotiate a settlement. Township rejects Gagnon offer. 

May 31, 2023, Gagnon meets with the township assessor and supervisor for over 1 hour, 

answering all questions about the original purchase and any improvements made to the 

house since purchase, and even about rental income received from lease of 35 acres to 

farmers. Gagnon suggests that the township simply visit the home for a “walk-through” 

and/or obtain its own appraisal so they can resolve the matter. 

June 2023, Gagnon attorney continues to negotiate with the township, but the township 

declines Gagnon’s next proposal. The township neither counter-offers, performs a 

“walk-through,” nor get its own appraisal. Gagnon’s attorney quotes $20,000 as the 

potential cost to successfully take this case through the tribunal. Gagnon balks and 

resorts to self-representation. 

July 2023, Gagnon appeals to the MI Tax Tribunal (erroneously filing in the ET division, 

instead of Small Claims) 

12. November 2023, Alpine Township assessor visits for a walk-through. Gagnon asks the 

assessor to respond with her observations so they can resolve / settle the matter. The 

assessor never responds.

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

February 2024, Gagnon receives 2024 Assessment Notice. The assessed value is less 

than Year 2023, but much higher than Gagnon’s independent appraisal. 

Gagnon asks 

how the 2024 assessment decrease was determined. No detail provided by township 

other than “adjusted effective ages” (i.e., from 90%Phys.Good to 82% Phys.Good) 

March 2024, Gagnon appeals to Board of Review, using April 2023 John Meyer 

independent appraisal - time adjusted — as evidence of value. Board rejects the protest, 

citing the 2023 tribunal case. 

March 25, 2024, the Township finally hires its own appraiser to do an appraisal as of 

12/31/2022 for the 2023 Assessment. The township’s attorney and appraisers come 

home for walk-through. Gagnon sits with attorney for over 1 hour, answering questions 

about the original purchase and all the improvements made to the house since 

purchase, and even about rental income received from lease of 35 acres to farmers. 

Gagnon suggests to the attorney that now that the township has an appraisal, the 

parties can resolve the matter. Neither the Township nor the attorney reports back. 

May 2024, Gagnon asks Tallmadge Township assessor for valuation report for 14011 — 

48" Ave., which Gagnon feels is the best comp for 1740 7 Mile in the John Meyer 

Appraisal. As it turns out, both appraisers used this good comp. Tallmadge assessor 

responds with commentary in a single email: 

e 

They visited our 2024 March Board of Review and received a 25% discount on the house 

pricing. 

| was not in that meeting to explain verbatim, but my thought would be that a higher 

priced home in our “RESO1 — Metes & Bounds” neighborhood could be an outlier compared 

to the norm. In other words, we treated the reduction against our BS&A market-adjusted 

cost approach as economic obsolescence... for being overbuilt compared to other 

properties in this ECF area of study. 

e 

The parcel was removed as an outlier for us for 2024 also, as the 2023 Assessed/Sales Ratio 

fell significantly 

and we didn’t feel this was a good representative sale to continue to include 

in our study of that area... which | think was validated by the owners visit to our Board of 

Review. 

o 

Note —we are discussing the potential of creating additional ECF’s to account for properties 

like this. The challenge is in how to divide up our properties, have big enough representative 

samples to have sales in those “neighborhoods” to compare annually to the appraisals, 

etc... this is one of the more difficult processes we are continuing to try to work through. 

Late June 2024, Gagnon reaches out to township attorney. Attorney reports that the 

township will not be sharing the appraisal with Gagnon - stating that the township is 

just going to share the appraisal as part of its Pre-Hearing Statement due July 22, 2024. 

The attorney does at least share the appraisal value of $1,330,000 (but no support for

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

the number). Gagnon later finds that Jim Van Stensel performed a REAL ESTATE 

APPRAISAL, using private sale data essentially provided by the Township. 

18. July 22, 2024, Gagnon offers to accept the township’s much higher appraisal value — 

without even reviewing the appraisal - if the township agrees to effectively include the 

township's appraisal value in 

a combined 2025 Combined Sales/Appraisal ECF Study. 

No one ever really addresses this “offer,” but itis in there! See exhibit _in Gagnon 

pre-hearing statement attachment. 

19. August 2024, while reviewing 

the Township's Jim Van Stensel appraisal, Gagnon notes: 

Van Stensel’s appraisal has data input errors on two of his home sale comps. 14011 

-48™ Ave. Tallmadge, Coopersville — which is the single best comp, and is included 

in both the John Meyer and Jim Van Stensel appraisals — has the wrong acreage. Jim 

Van Stensel used 15 acres in his analysis, but the parcel is 28 acres. And 10370 

State Rd. Nunica, is actually two parcels (40 + 17), not one 57-acre parcel, and it 

was built in 2017, not 2001, as Jim VS used. 

The appraisal specifically states land value of $430,000 ($9,000/acre), meaning 

$900,000 value for homes + barns. Note - $900,000 is a good number 

to remember. 

The $9,000 / acre value determined by Jim VS (for Gagnon property) is $2,800 / acre 

higher than the 2023 township land study conclusion of $6,200 / acre. 

The sale comps used to value the land includes only 1 parcel sold on the MLS (i.e., 

2633 8 Mile $486,500/69.5 a. = $7,000/acre). The other 3 sales were private sales. 

The only publicly available information on these private sales came from the 

township’s 2023 and 2024 AG Vacant Land Studies. 

20. Regarding the AG vacant land studies: 

The 2023 AG Vacant Land Study includes the sale of an overbuilt home on 50 acres. 

The inclusion of this [home] sale in the vacant land study reduces the study 

conclusion. This is not a problem in itself, other than that the township said this was 

a “bad sale” when Gagnon used it as a comp in the March 2023 BOR protest. 

The 2024 AG Vacant Land Study has a math “footing” error that significantly 

impacts the conclusion of the study, and 

The 2024 (and 2025) AG Vacant Land Study includes several “developmental” sales 

and / or related party “allocation of value” that were not even sales. 1 20 acre sale 

comp is being “upzoned” to low-density residential, and over 60 dwelling units could 

be built on this parcel. 

e 

These developmentaland or related party transactions are inappropriately used by 

Jim Van Stensel to value Gagnon’s 48-acre unsplittable residential home site. See 

page 4 of his appraisal.

PELEMPDCE 2024 

1 

VorqeY 

xo boo Ther L 

PENNIovE? br DEL 2024 osu 77 HEVIEW 

21. 

nN 

N 

nN 

w 

nN 

IN 

N 

ol 

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

e 

Yet, Gagnon has been told repeatedly since 2020 that “the township does not 

consider private sales as acceptable evidence of value, and the township does not 

intentionally include private sales in studies” 

November 2024, Gagnon offers to settle with the township but explains that the 

combination of errors and private sales/developmental parcels/related party dealin the 

land studies will create “phantom true cash value” in 2025 unless the parties agree on a 

2023 land value in the settlement. Gagnon asks if the township will update the 2023 

land value on the [revised] record card to prevent an unfair assessment in 2025. The 

township states that it will not update the record card to reflect even the implied land 

value in the settlement and warns Gagnon that “the MTT has no authority to make us do 

so.” 

November 2024, the case goes into default status because Gagnon accidentally 

missed the Pre-Hearing Conference. Gagnon makes another attempt to settle, but the 

township explains that it will not enter into settlement negotiations while the case is in 

default. 

. February 2025, Gagnon receives 2025 assessment. Sure enough, itincludes a much 

higher land [study] value resulting in “phantom TCV.” The assessment also unfairly 

includes an ECF that is poorly supported and seems to be based on the sale of homes 

valued at around $300,000, which of course are increasing in value more rapidly than a 

home at the highest end of the township spectrum. 

March 2025, Gagnon appeals to the Board of Review. The Board notes the pending 2023 

and 2024 MTT cases and declines to make any changes. 

. April 2025, Gagnon makes 2023 settlement offer to township but asks that a “side 

agreement” covering year 2025 be part of it. [Gagnon is unable to specifically state a 

2024 settlement since the township had already “sort of”/somewhat/not enough 

lowered the 2024 assessment without first addressing the 2023 over-assessment (see 

chronology #13), and the 2024 ag land study had a math error (see chronology #20), so 

2024 has too many moving parts. Gagnon just wants to let 2023 settlement numbers 

flow into and beyond 2024, and then address the 2025 overassessment resulting from 

“phantom TCV” and the inflated 2025 ECF.] 

26. The township assessor is out of town, so cannot respond to the Gagnon’s offer prior to 

the PHC with Judge Wease. 

27. April 16, 2025, MTT Docket 23-003074 Pre-Hearing Conference with Judge Joshua M. 

Wease, Township attorney Toby Koenig, and Margo Gagnon.

2024 SMALL CLAIMS 

AMENDED - PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

Key points: 

e 

The parties agree that Gagnon erroneously filed this case in the Entire Tribunal and 

agree to move the case to Small Claims. The docket number and all exhibits will 

transfer 

to Small Claims. 

a. 

Judge Wease and Mr. Koenig are not sure if moving the 2023 ET caseto SC 

also automatically adds Gagnon 2024 SC (docket #24-003832), and since it 

is after April 1, also automatically includes Year 2025. 

b. 

Judge Wease to look into this. 

c. 

Gagnon posits: Or maybe not needed? if Judge Wease simply uses John 

Meyer’s appraisal as the most fair and “issue-free” true cash value for Year 

2023, John’s TCV will essentially equal the 2025 TCV “as if” Judge Wease 

were able to use the following as his TCV conclusion: 

Land 

$352,000 (flat land value in 2023, but catches up to 2025 land study) 

House + Barns $930,000 

Total TCV 

$,282,000, the average of John Meyer + Jim Van Stensel 

e 

Gagnon and Koenig confirm that the parties have attempted to settle the matter but 

are “hung up on” whether a land value is implied in a potential 2023 settlement, and 

whether failing to recognize the land value vs house + barns component unfairly 

impacts the Gagnon’s 2025 assessment. 

a. 

Judge Wease notes that thisis a legitimate issue...... and comes up often, 

including a Walmart case he had just last week. 

b. 

But Judge Wease confirms that Mr. Koenig is correct in that the tribunal does 

not have jurisdiction over how the land value is reported on the record card 

and will not include this information in the TCV judgement. 

28. New Small Claims Hearing set for May 13, 2025 with Judge Wease

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

WAYNE W. GAGNON TRUST, 

MTT Docket No. 23-003074 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003832 

MTT Docket No. 25-000741 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 41-09-22-200-049 

V 

 

TOWNSHIP OF ALPINE, 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

/ 

Wayne W. Gagnon Trust 

Toby Koenig (P72367) 

Petitioner’s Representative 

 

PO Box 565 

BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

Belmont, MI 49306 

Attorney for Respondent 

(616) 446-8061 

161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 

gilroc@charter.net 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

 

(616) 965-9343 

 

toby@bloomsluggett.com 

 

 / 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Margo Gagnon, representative of Petitioner, says that on April 25, 2025, she served a copy 

of the Petitioner, Wayne W. Gagnon Trust’s Year 2024 Amended Property Tax Appeal Petition 

Form Valuation Appeal, and supporting exhibits including: 

o Attachment for Section 1 & 2: LARA e-filing submission problems on April 21, 2025 

o Attachment for Section 5: Chronology of Years 2023, 2024, & 2025 

o Attachment for Section 6: Jurisdictional Issue regarding combination of 2023, 2024 

and 2025 tax protests 

o Attachment for Section 6: Appearance at December 2024 Board of Review 

o Attachment for Section 7: Valuation Information 

o Attachment for Section 7: Confusion over Township data including 

 %Good on 2024 Assessment and 

 Math footing error on 2024 Ag Vacant Land Study 

upon 

Toby 

Koenig, 

attorney 

for 

Respondent, 

by 

electronic 

mail 

to: 

toby@bloomsluggett.com. 

/s/ Margo Gagnon 

 

Margo Gagnon

← View full record