TOCU-2.pdf
Tocu, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Watertown, Respondent · 25-002624-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
RECEIVED JUN 02 2025 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR TOCU , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) MTT Docket No. City of Sandusky/Watertwon Twp. Respondent(s) ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No: 240-009-200-010-04 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. The property identified above is Xx real ___ personal. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? Yes ___ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 6. The property identified above is classified as 201Comm
Page 2
MTT Docket No. Page 2 of 4 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal's authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Sanilac ~~ County. The property or properties’ address is: 625 S Sandusky Sandusky MI 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Sandusky/Watertown Twp 12. Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: C/O TFI 1146 E Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): X the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes __ No uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment
Page 3
MTT Docket No. Page 3 of 4 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or vears (attach additional page if necessary): 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 608,800 304,400 283,215 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 450,000 225,000 225,000 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 158,800 79,400 58,215 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures based on comps, condition, income, vacancy, etc.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. Page 4 of 4 Q PRI br's uthorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: A» NETOE AIA Al Wa FB Stephen Polter Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com Mailing Address: 2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, MI 48084 Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 Date: May 25, 2025
Page 5
May 27, 2025 RECEIVED MAY: 80 205 f= = f FAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLL A division of Polter Law Group 2nd Floot Michigan Tax Tribunal 2407 N. Grand River Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48906 Re: Multiple 2025 PTA To whom it may concern, This mailing contains sixty-three (“63”) commercial property tax appeals/petitions and one (“1”) multi (2) contiguous residential appeal/ petition, along with the requisite filing fees, as follows: SXM LLC v Hadley Twp. (multi — 2) Res., along with 2 checks (#1345-46) for $125 ea. CCCU v Muskegon/Fruitpott, along with 2 checks; one (#1320) for $250, one (#1393) for $150 (totaling $400). CCCU v Commetce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) fot $150 (totaling $400). CCCU v Notton Shores, along with 1 check (#1319) in the amount of $250. TOCU v Sandusky, along with 1 check (#1317) in the amount of $250. TOCU v Owosso, along with 1 check (#1318) in the amount of $250. W Investors v FH, along with 1 check (#1378) in the amount of $400. Rite Aid Cotp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 1 check (#1336) in the amount of $400. Warten Manor v Watren, along with 2 checks; one (#1311) for $600, one (#1390) for $25 (totaling $625 — contiguous multi (2)). 2Changs v N'Ville, along with 2 checks; one (#1350) for $250, one (#1389) for $150 (totaling $400). ’ 5016 Greenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. Springfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331) in the amount of $400. Westbelt v Clawson, along with 1 check (#1337) in the amount of $400. CVS (Encote) v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1316) in the amount of $250. 10 Middlebelt v FH, along with 1 check (#1375) in the amount of $250.
Page 6
X Holdings v Watten, along with 1 check (#1329) in the amount of $400. Prism v Mt Pleasant, along with 1 check (#1326) in the amount of $250. Mishpat v Sfld., along with 2 checks; one (#1348) for $250, one (#1388) for $150 (totaling $400). Greenfield Manor v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1369) in the amount of $400. Prep v Grand Haven, along with 1 check (#1349) in the amount of $400. Impulso v OP, along with 1 check (1338) in the amount of $400. Impulso v Clarkston/Independence Twp., along with 1 check (#1340) in the amount of $400. Impulso v Pennfield, along with 2 checks; one (#1339) for $250, one (#1387) for $150 (totaling $400). Farmington 9 v Farmington, along with 1 check (#1333) in the amount of $400. HWEFDS v LP, along with 1 check (#1334) in the amount of $400. Main 5% v RO, along with 1 check (#1332) in the amount of $400. Messersmith v Okemos, along with 1 check (#1335) in the amount of $400. RAD v VBT, along with 1 check (#1314) in the amount of $400. St Helen v. Charlevoix, along with 2 checks; one (#1315) for $250, one (#1386) for $150 (totaling $400). Durand RAD v Durand, along with 1 check (#1313) in the amount of $400. 360 N MLK v Pontiac, along with 2 checks; one (#1312) for $400, one (#1396) for $100 (contiguous — multi 5))- Schaefer v Sfld., along with 1 check (#1365) in the amount of $400. 26382 v Inkster, along with 1 check (#1310) in the amount of $400. 29200 v Livonia, along with 1 check (#1308) in the amount of $400. 20030 Taylor v Taylor, along with 1 check (#1309) in the amount of $400. 222 Reed v Reed City, along with 1 check (#1307) in the amount of $250. WMG v Flint, along with 2 checks; one (#1347) for $250, one (#1385) for $150 (totaling $400). 13 York v Novi, along with 1 check (#1364) in the amount of $400. Kenwood v RO, along with 2 checks; one (#1341) for $250, one (#1384) for $150 (totaling $400). Farmer v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1342) in the amount of $400. Rivetshell v Lansing, along with 2 checks; one (#1363) for $600, one (#1383) for $25 (totaling $625) (contiguous — multi (2)). ID Pallister v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1366) in the amount of $600. ID Cap v Detroit, along with 2 checks; one (#1367) for $600, one (#1394) for $25
Page 7
JRV v Livonia., along with 1 check (#1325) in the amount of $400. Dhal RE v Sfld., along with 2 checks; one (#1324) for $400, one (#1381) for $200 (totaling $600). NWH v Lansing, along with 2 checks; one (#1351) for $250, one (#1380) for $150 (totaling $400). Berkley Venture v Berkley, along with 1 check (#1361) in the amount of $400. FHH v FH, along with 1 check (#1357) in the amount of $250. Northstar v Chesterfield, along with 1 check (#1353) in the amount of $250. Fenton v BC, along with 1 check (#1356) in the amount of $400. NWH v FH, along with 1 check (#1352) in the amount of $400. Global v Roseville, along with 1 check (#1358) in the amount of $400. Garfield Venture v CT, along with 1 check (#1360) in the amount of $600. Global v Shelby, along with 1 check (#1355) in the amount of $400. Intl Prop v Macomb, along with 1 check (#1379) in the amount of $250. KB3 v Big Rapids, along with 1 check (#1397) in the amount of $400. Please file and issue/email docket numbets accordingly. President, EPTA CC (Letter only): SOM MTT
Page 8
LY POLTER LAW GROUP 2600 W. BIG BEAVER, SUITE L100 | TROY, MI 48084 us SEES - MTT ToR 202 Lons wg, MT Y§909