mtt objection 4 7 26.pdf

Brain Tadajewski Petitioner V Township Of Maple Ridge Respondent · 26-000555-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.

Re: Petition for 2026 Assessment Appeal

Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02

Petitioner: Brian Tadajewski

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed please find Petitioner’s 2026 assessment appeal regarding Parcel No. 041-013-000-

672-02, located at 488 Geronimo Road, Alpena, Michigan.

This appeal concerns a fabricated 33' × 265' right-of-way (ROW) dimension that appears in the 

2026 assessment record but does not appear in any recorded document, certified survey, 

court order, or legal description. The Township Board of Review:

• 

ignored all submitted evidence,

• 

demanded a document that does not exist, and

• 

denied Petitioner notice and the opportunity to appear.

The petition details the factual background, statutory violations, procedural defects, and 

supporting exhibits demonstrating that the assessment is unsupported and must be 

corrected.

Please process this appeal and notify Petitioner of any additional information required.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian Tadajewski

488 Geronimo Road

Alpena, MI 49707

Email: 02legalemail@gmail.com

Phone: (989) 657-3943

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Brian Tadajewski appeals the 2026 Maple Ridge Township Board of Review decision 

for Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02. The assessment is based on a fabricated 33' × 265' right-of=-

way (ROW) dimension that appears in no recorded document, certified survey, court order, or 

legal description. The assessment is based on a fabricated right-of-way (ROW) dimension that 

does not appear in any recorded document.

The Board Denied the objection by ignoring all submitted evidence, demanded a document 

that does not exist, while dening Petitioner notice and the opportunity to appear.

This violates:

- MCL 211.10e(1)– assessments must be based on actual property characteristics. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – true cash value must be determined using verified data. 

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board of Review must provide notice and opportunity to be heard. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17– due process. 

- Const 1963, art 9, §3 – uniform taxation. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – decisions must be supported by competent, material, and 

substantial evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379 (1998) — assessments must be based 

on accurate, verified property data.

 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 1. No Recorded Document Establishes a 33' × 265' ROW

 Violations:

- MCL 211.10e(1) – assessor must use actual physical characteristics. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – fabricated dimensions cannot be used to determine value. 

- MCL 565.201 et seq. – only recorded instruments establish boundaries. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – fabricated facts cannot support an assessment.

 Supporting Case Law 

Jones & Laughlin Steel v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348 (1992) — assessment invalid where 

based on incorrect or unverified property data.

 ( 1 of 6 )

2. Assessor Admits the Dimension Was Based on Assumption, Not Evidence, (Exhibit A 1-2). 

 Violations

- MCL 211.10e(1) – prohibits assumption-based assessments. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – requires factual valuation. 

- MCL 211.3 – assessor cannot alter boundaries. 

- MRPC 3.3(a)(1) – prohibits false statements to a tribunal.

 Supporting Case Law 

Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473 (1991) — valuation 

must be based on verified data, not assumptions.

 3. Board of Review Demanded a Survey from Tadajewski That Does Not Exist, (Exhibit B) 

furthermore it would Berg Assessing responsibility to produce a survey of his fabricated ROW 

claim. 

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4)- Board must review evidence, not shift burden. 

- MCL 211.10e(1) – assessor must justify assessment. 

- MCR 2.312 – cannot demand nonexistent documents. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

 Supporting Case Law 

Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1979) — government cannot impose impossible 

evidentiary burdens.

 4. Boundary Issue Remains Unresolved as noted within the Michigan Court of Appeals order, 

(Exhibit C).

 Violations:

- MCL 211.27(1) – cannot assess based on unresolved or speculative boundaries. 

- MCL 600.2932 – boundary disputes require judicial determination. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – requires competent evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256 (2001) — boundary disputes require clear, recorded 

evidence; assumptions are impermissible.

5. Petitioner Was Denied Notice and Opportunity to Appear

 Petitioner received no notice of a hearing date… despite the Board stating Petitioner 

‘appeared.’ (Exhibit B).

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4) – mandatory notice requirement.

 ( 2 )

- MCL 211.30a – taxpayer must be allowed to present evidence. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

- MTT Rule 205.1103(2) – requires fair hearing procedures.

 Supporting Case Law 

Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50 (2009) — failure to provide notice violates due 

process and invalidates the decision.

6. Board of Review Failed to Review Any Submitted Exhibits (Exhibit D) as separate pdf 

attachment.

Petitioner submitted multiple exhibits demonstrating that no recorded document, certified

survey, court order, or legal description contains the fabricated 33' × 265' ROW dimension.

These exhibits included:

- Exhibit A – August 16, 2023 Court Order (contains no ROW dimensions). 

- Exhibit B – Berg Assessing Affidavit and pleadings (admitting reliance on statutory 

presumption). 

- Exhibit C – 2025 Tax Assessment (shows fabricated 33' × 265' ROW). 

- Exhibit D – Court of Appeals Order (boundary issue unresolved). 

- Exhibit E – Certified Recorded ROW (contains no 33' × 265' dimension). 

Despite receiving these exhibits, the Board’s denial letter:

- did not reference a single exhibit, 

- did not address any evidence submitted, 

- did not dispute any factual point raised, 

- did not identify any document supporting the fabricated ROW, and 

- instead demanded a “survey of road right-of-way,” a document that does not exist.

This demonstrates that the Board did not review the evidence presented and issued a denial

without factual or legal basis.

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board must review evidence submitted by the taxpayer. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – decisions must be supported by competent, material, and 

substantial evidence. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – arbitrary administrative action violates due process.

 Supporting Case Law

Detroit v Detroit Plaza Ltd Partnership, 273 Mich App 260 (2006) — failure to consider 

evidence renders a decision arbitrary and capricious.

 ( 3 )

III. ARGUMENT

 1. The Assessment Is Unsupported and Invalid

An assessment based on fabricated information is invalid and cannot stand.

 Violations

- MCL 211.10e(1) – fabricated characteristics cannot be used. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – valuation must be based on actual property. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – requires substantial evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265 (1984) — assessments must be grounded in 

competent, material, and substantial evidence.

2. Board Ignored All Submitted Evidence

The Board’s denial did not address a single exhibit.

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board must review evidence. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – requires reasoned decision-making. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – arbitrary action violates due process.

 Supporting Case Law 

Detroit v Detroit Plaza Ltd Partnership, 273 Mich App 260 (2006) — ignoring evidence renders 

decision arbitrary and capricious.

 3. Board Improperly Shifted Burden of Proof

The burden rests with the assessor to justify the assessment.

 Violations

- MCL 211.10e(1) – assessor must justify assessment. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – taxpayer does not bear burden to disprove fabricated data. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – tribunal must rely on competent evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Jones & Laughlin Steel, 193 Mich App 348 — burden is on the assessing authority.

 ( 4 )

4. Board Violated Procedural Due Process

A decision issued without notice or opportunity to be heard violates basic due-process 

protections.

 Violations

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process. 

- MCL 211.30(4) – mandatory notice. 

- MCL 211.30a– right to appear. 

- MTT Rule 205.1103(2) – fair hearing requirement.

 Supporting Case Law

Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50 — lack of notice invalidates Board action.

 IV. IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED BOARD OF REVIEW

 1. No Public Identification of Board Members

Maple Ridge Township does not publish the names of its Board of Review members.

 Violations

- MCL 211.28(1 – Board must be lawfully appointed. 

- MCL 15.231 et seq. (FOIA) – public bodies must disclose membership. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

 Supporting Case Law 

People v Higuera, 244 Mich App 429 (2001) — unidentified decision-makers violate due 

process.

 2. Decision Page Contains Only Initials

The decision page contains only initials, with no printed names.

 Violations:

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board must issue a valid, reviewable decision. 

- MCL 15.231 et seq. – transparency requirement. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

 Supporting Case Law 

In re Complaint of Rovas, 482 Mich 90 (2008) — administrative decisions must be traceable to 

accountable officials.

3. No Evidence the Board Reviewed Submitted Exhibits

This demonstrates no review of evidence, no deliberation, and no factual basis.

 ( 5 )

Violations

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board must review evidence. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – requires substantial evidence. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17– arbitrary action violates due process.

 Supporting Case Law

Detroit Plaza, 273 Mich App 260 — failure to consider evidence invalidates decision.

 4. Decision Is Invalid on Its Face

The Board’s decision is procedurally defective and must be overturned.

 Violations

- MCL 211.28(1) – improper Board composition. 

- MCL 211.30(4) – lack of notice. 

- MCL 211.10e(1) – fabricated data. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – lack of competent evidence.

 Supporting Case Law

Hughes, Detroit Plaza, Antisdale — all support invalidation of arbitrary, unsupported, or 

procedurally defective decisions.

 V. RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal:

1. Remove the unsupported 33' × 265' ROW dimension from the assessment record. 

2. Correct the property description to match certified recorded documents. 

3. Adjust the assessed and taxable values accordingly. 

4. Grant any further relief the Tribunal deems just and proper.

Date: April 9, 2026 Respectfully Submitted

 /s/ Brian Tadajewski

 ( 6 of 6 )

Exhibit A-1

* >>>>>

* >>>>> 

Exhibit A-1 

counts, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; therefore, Plaintiffs 

complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, and Defendants are entitled to costs and fees for 

being required to file this action. 

EACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Allan Berg is the President of Berg Assessing and Consulting, a domestic for-profit 

Corporation that contracts with Maple Ridge Township to provide assessing services for said 

Township. In that role, Berg was approached by the Plaintiff for the correction of the tax assessed 

value of his property located at 488 Geronimo Road, Alpena, MI 49707, and bearing the Parcel ID 

041-013-000-672-02, due to some of his parcel being encumbered by a right-of-way. 

The encumbrance stems from a 2022 proceeding in this court, File No. 22-1899-CH 

(“Previous Litigation), which found that the Alpena County Road Commission had a valid tight-of- 

way over a portion of Plaintiffs land. The plaintiff appealed the matter to the Michigan Coutt of 

Appeals, where it was assigned Case Number: COA #374166, which remains pending. 

Despite the matter being pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals, Plaintiff, Brian 

Tadajewski, has filed this action against the Alpena County Road Commission (“ACRC”) and its 

attorney(s), as well as Defendants, Allan Berg, and Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. 

On or about December 14, 2023, Plaintiff requested the adjustment of the assessed value of 

his above-cited parcel based on property that is encumbered by a right-of-way. See 

Exhibit 1 Email 

Requesting Reassessment. On or about January 15, 2024, Plaintiffs tax assessment was adjusted to 

reflect that 0.2 of the total 4.5 acres comprising the subject parcel was encumbered and therefore not 

assessable property. See Exhibit 2 Reassessed Parcel Communications. The grounds for the 

reassessment is contained in the judgement of this Honorable Court August 8, 2023 granting the 

County's right-of-way (see Exhibit 3, Judgement). The boundaries of said reassessment were based on 

Page 

6 of 15

Exhibit A -2

* >>>>>

*>>>>> 

Exhibit A -2 

the statutory presumption of road width being 4-rods or 66-feet (see MCL 221.20) that is shared with 

neighboring parcels leaving 33-feet by 265 feet encumbering Plaintiffs land. The result of said 

adjustment resulted in the reduction of the assessed value of the property and its corresponding tax 

bill. 

Beginning on or about February 21, 2025, and on at least three subsequent occasions, Plaintiff 

submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request seeking information regarding what 

Plaintiff characterized as a “division of land.” To which Betg informed Plaintiff that Berg is a non- 

governmental entity and that FOIA Requests must be submitted to the Township FOIA Coordinator 

(See Exhibit 4).' 

The job of an assessor is to make tax determinations regarding real property within their 

jurisdiction. Assessors do not make decisions relating to propetty dimensions, boundaries, 

encumbrances, or legal descriptions. They cannot alter any of the aforementioned items. An assessor 

determines value. 

If a property owner disagrees with an assessment determination, they petition the 

Board of Review (as noted herein). What Defendants Berg did was reassess the taxable value of 

Plaintiff's Property, at his request, and reduced his assessment and tax bill based on the order of this 

Honorable Court”. Despite conducting itself properly, Defendants Berg find themselves here. 

STANDARD 

OF REVIEW 

Michigan law provides that a motion under MCR 2.1 16(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the 

complaint on the basis of the pleadings alone. See York v. 50th Dist. Ct., 212 Mich. App. 345, 347, 

536 N.W.2d 891, 893 (1995). Summary Disposition should be granted where the nonmoving party’s 

pleadings are not legally sufficient to sustain an actionable claim. 

! Defendant Berg forwarded Plaintiffs FOIA requests of its own initiative as well. 

? Exhibit 3, Judgement 

Page 

7 of 15

Exhibit B-1

 * >>> 

Exhibit B-1 

Sa 

2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION ~~ 

Rogers City, MI 49779 

NAME A] ND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

and legal description optional ): 

TADAJEWSKI ROBERT & BRIAN TA 

433 GERONIMO Ro» 

041-013-000-672-02 

488 GERONIMO RD 

Alpena M1 49707 

T3IN RE SEC 13 COM AT S 1/4 COR OF SEC TH N 86D 18M 

20S W ALG S SEC LN 495.58 FT TH N 03D 41M 40S E 1035.09 

FTTH S 73D 29M 07S E 142.66 FT TH S 06D 59M W 320.0 FT 

TH $ 83D 0IME 190.0 FT TH S 69D 25 M 40S E 67.76 FT TH S 

06D 59M W 170.0 FT TH 8 11D 21M 24S E 500.85 FT TO POB 

PART OF SW 1/4 BEING ELY 495.58 FT OF PARCEL 

# 22 

THUNDER BAY VILLAGE ACRES # 2 EXC COM AT S 1/4 COR 

THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED 

401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 041-013-000-672-02 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments 

# >>> DENIED. PROVIDE SURVEY OF ROAD RIGHT AWAY 

[2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

| 

[2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

| 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

[2026 

ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

| 

[2026 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

| 

2026 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

100.0000 

| 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed above or call if you have any questions. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Roard 

of Review regarding tentative taxable value, further appeal may be made to the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, by submitting a petition (available on their website at http://www.mi.gov/taxtrib) by May 31 for Commercial Real, Industrial Real, 

Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property by July 31 for Agricultural Real, Residential 

Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property. 

Property Classification appeals ONLY may be appealed to the State Tax Commission by submitting a petition by June 30th and visiting their 

webiste at http://www.mi.gov/statetaxcommission

Exhibit B-2

Exhibit B-2 

MK -a¢ak- 

00 |, 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

818 

(Rev. 11-12) 

Petition to Board of Review 

L-4035 

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

or the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review. 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT 

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type) 

Petitioner's Name 

(If Other than Owner. 

Please Print or Type) 

| 

Brian Tadajewski 

Township or City 

County 

| 

Maple ridge 

Alpena 

The undersigned protests the assessed value andor the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified 

agricultural property exemption of the following described property: 

[Property tented (Parcel code required. Properly address & legal description optional) 

041-073-000-672-02 

488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707 

; 

NAD 

ja 

DOK Ae 

= 

Protested Item 

fo] Assessed Value 

hw) Tentative Taxable Value 

O Classification 

O Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT 

(Complete this section for a protest of assessed value and/or tentative taxable value) 

| 

[Assessed Amount 

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value 

| Tentative Taxable Value 

Year 

| $33,600 

2. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION 

(Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in 

accordance with Section 211.34¢ of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular 

classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.) 

[Classification o property on this year's assessment rol 

| 

| Classification should be (check one of the following): 

(=| Agricultural 

O Industrial 

O Timber Cutover 

[El Utility (Personal Property Only) 

VE) Commercial 

EE) Residential 

Od Developmental 

3. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

(Ifthe assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural 

property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW 

HAS NO AUTHORITY 

TO CONSIDER OR ACT 

Otte EN 

UPON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.) 

Percent qualified agricultural 

exemplion 

granted by 

(Enter 01 

Percent qualified agricultural exempiion requested by owner (Enter 100 If full 

denied) 

exemption requested) 

4. REASON FOR PROTEST 

[State reason(s) for protest of assessed value smdor the tentalive taxable value andor 

dassiieation andlor qualified 

property 

| 

Property has been Assessed to include a 33ft by 265ft public right of way, no court order or such contains this 

dimensional boundary. 

see attached court records. Assessment records need to be corrected to insure correct 

taxation of property 

| 

CERTIFICATION 

: 

n 

. 

Date 

st 

/s/ Brian Tadajewski 

Feb 23, 2026 

Address 

Phone Number 

488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707 

(989) 657-3943 

www.michigan.govitreasury

Exhibit B-3

Exhibit B-3 

Form 618, Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

i YT 

25 A 

si-05-00) Baza] 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Parcel Code 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state ha-zeason.foris-action-bel 

Denied 

 [_] Assessed Value Changed From 

Jto] 

3b 

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson: X Yes 

[] ya 

Member: [ves [Ine aq 

Member. 

Yes 

[] vo 

TOh 

Reagan for board action 

\ 

i 

Ti 

{reoTetes TST URRY SC ER RT REE Bere ~~ 

If you disagree with the decision of the Shara of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you hay appeal that decision by fling a petiion wit the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real. Commercial Personal, 

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultural 

Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. 

The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax 

|_ Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.goviaxtrib. 

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[ZF Denied 

 [] Tentative Taxable Value Changed From 

to 

Record of vote - Board or three member committee af board 

Chairperson: 

7] Yes 

[] Nol A 

Member: [rd] Yes [JNo A 

Member: [5] Yes 

[| No 

} I 

I 

Initials 

Initials 

Reasqn for board action 

= 

tov Ade, 

Sui ve oy of 

{lu toad {ahd awe 

| Ifyou disagree with the decision of 

the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, he may appeal that decision by fing a petition wih the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, 

Industrial Personal and Utiity Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Tmber-Cutover Real and 

Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The peiition must be filed on a 

Michigan Tax Tribunal form or 8 form approved by the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at ‘www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

| 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

| 

[[JDenied 

 [] Classification Changed From 

to 

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson: [_] Yes [| No 

| Reason for board action 

ea 

Member: [Yes [INo 

oe 

Member: [ves [No 

Tnitals 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax.Commission 

at P.O. Box 30471, Lansing, MI 48909 by June 30. 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[7] Exemption Request Denied 

[TJ Exemption percent modified from 

% to 

% 

Record of vote - Board or three member committee 

of board 

Chairperson: [| Yes 

[| No 

[Reason for board action 

Member: [J Yes [_]No 

Member: [] Yes []No 

Initials 

Initials 

Tnitials 

| 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

| Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48908 by July 31. 

The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form 

| approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

5. ADJOURNMENT 

Date of br 

To of Board of Review 

Nach 

12, 2050 

Board of 

Revigh 

Secretary Gignat 

r 

3 

| 

+h <2) Ja 

Febesao2s Na rch 

|g 2096 

L

Exhibit C

 

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

 

 

BRIAN TADAJEWSKI V BERG ASSESSING AND CONSULTING INC 

Docket No. 

377727 

LC No. 

2025-003160-CK 

 

 

Michael F. Gadola, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.203(F)(1), orders: 

The motion to waive fees is GRANTED in this case only. 

 

The claim of appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. MCR 7.203(A)(1). The 

October 1, 2025 order is not a final order as defined in MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) because it does not dispose of 

the underlying claims against defendants Allen Berg and Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. Dismissal 

is without prejudice to the filing of a late appeal under MCR 7.205(A)(4), provided such a filing meets all 

requirements under the court rules and is not time-barred. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 4, 2025

Exhibit D- PDF of Full objection filed Separately as Attachment

To: Alpena Township Board of Review Date: Feb 23, 2026

From: Brian Tadajewski

Parcel Number: 041-013-000-672-02: 488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707

Subject: Objection to 2026 Property Tax Assessment – Incorrect Right-of-Way (ROW)

 Mr Tadajewski is objecting to the 2026 property tax assessment because the assessment 

includes a “33-foot by 265-foot right-of-way (ROW)” on Mr Tadajewskis parcel that is not 

supported by any recorded document, certified survey, easement, or court order.

 This ROW dimension appears on the taxation assessment, Because the ROW dimension is 

not supported by any official or recorded source, the assessment is based on fictional 

information and must be corrected.

 Supporting Documentation

1. Exhibit A: August 16, 2023 Court Order 

 – Contains no ROW dimensions and does not establish a 33' × 265' right-of-way.

2. Exhibit B: Berg Assessing- Stating the dimension obtained from an Aug 16, 2023 court order

a. Berg Assessing Affidavit 

b. Berg Assessing Trial Court Pleadings

3. Exhibit C: 2025 Tax Assessment- Includes a 33' × 265' ROW that does not appear in any 

certified, recorded document or prior tax records

4. Exhibit D: Court of Appeals Order – Confirms the boundary issue was not resolved and 

remains unsettled. Mr Tadajewski refiled with COA acceptance.

5. Exhibit E: Certified Recorded Controlling ROW- Does not include a mention of 33ft by 265ft.

 Requested Action

1. Remove the unsupported 33' × 265' ROW dimension from the assessment record.

2. Correct the property description to match the recorded documents.

3. Adjust the taxable value accordingly based on the corrected description.

This objection is based solely on the factual discrepancy between the recorded property 

description and the assessment record.

 Sincerely,

 /s/ Brian Tadajewski 

 Date: Feb 23,2026 02legalemail@gmail.com

← View full record