Severed petition.pdf
Daniel Zuckerbrod, Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield, Respondent · 24-004053-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 IN THE MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Daniel and Daphna Zuckerbrod, Petitioners, vs. City of Southfield, Respondent. Docket no. 24–004053 ____________________________________________________________________/ DEAN & FULKERSON, P.C. Thomas P. Christy (P55593) Attorneys for Petitioner 100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 650 Troy, Michigan 48084 248–362–1300/fax –1358 tchristy@dflaw.com HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 South Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 248–731–3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com ____________________________________________________________________/ SEVERED PETITION (WITH PROOF OF SERVICE) Petitioners Daniel and Daphna Zuckerbrod states for their severed petition: 1. On July 21, 2023, the petitioners filed case no. 23–002752 in the entire tribunal to contest the 2023 assessed value, taxable value, and state equalized value for the property described in the caption above. 2. On July 31, 2024, the petitioners filed a motion to add the 2024 tax year. 3. On August 6, 2024, the tribunal granted the motion to add the 2024 year. However, it severed the 2024 year from the case, assigned the new case number 24–4053, and ordered the petitioner to file a severed petition. This document is filed to satisfy that order.
Page 2
4. Petitioners Daniel and Daphna Zuckerbrod own real property in the City of Southfield, Oakland County, Michigan. 5. Respondent City of Southfield is located in Oakland County, Michigan and assesses and collects property taxes on the property described below. 6. The subject property is located in the City of Southfield, in Oakland County, and the Southfield Public School district (#63060). It is commonly known as 17565 Alta Vista Drive; has parcel ID #76–24–24–305–010; and is legally described as Lot 139, Sherwood Village Subdivision, according to the recorded plat thereof, as recorded in liber 88 of plats, page 26, Oakland County records. 7. The assessor has classified the property as residential improved (401). 8. The improvements on the property were constructed for residential use and remain available for residential use. 9. The petitioner contests the following related to 2024 real property taxes: (a) taxable value; (b) valuation; (c) assessment, and (d) uniformity. 10. As required by MCL 205.735a(3), the petitioners appealed the city’s 2024 assessment for the property to the Southfield board of review. The petitioners appeared before the board on March 7, 2024. The appeal was denied. 11. The city’s assessor believes that the property’s true cash value for 2024 is $696,900; that the property’s assessed value and state equalized value for 2024 are $348,450; and that the taxable value for 2024 is $298,944.
Page 3
12. The petitioners believe that the property’s true cash value for 2024 is $600,000; that the property’s assessed value and state equalized value for 2024 should be $300,000; and that the taxable value for 2024 should be $276,246. 13. Thus, the amount in dispute for 2024 is $96,000 as to true cash value, $48,450 as to assessed value and state equalized value, and $22,698. 14. No changes have been made to the property’s classification, and the petitioner still does not contest the classification. 15. The dispute is based in part based on an addition or a loss to improvements on the property and the portion of the property’s value subject to the “cap.” 16. The respondent’s 2024 determination of assessed value, taxable value, and state equalized value, and the taxes to be levied and collected upon those determinations, are unlawful and/or operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer because the taxable value and/or state equalized value: (a) exceed the amount permitted by the Michigan constitution and statute; (b) are at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan constitution and applicable statutes; (c) are based upon erroneous determination of the true cash value; (d) discriminate against the petitioner and deny the petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully requests that the tribunal determine that the parcel’s true cash value for 2024 is no greater than $600,000; that its assessed value and tentative state equalized value for 2024 are no greater
Page 4
than $300,000; and that its taxable value for 2024 is no greater than $276,246; plus require the respondent to pay to the petitioner refunds attributable to such reductions, interest, and costs. Dated: February 5, 2025 Respectfully submitted, DEAN & FULKERSON, P.C. By: /s/ Thomas P. Christy (P55593) Attorneys for Petitioners 100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 650 Troy, Michigan 48084 248–362–1300/fax –1358 tchristy@dflaw.com PROOF OF SERVICE Thomas P. Christy states that on February 5, 2025, he served a copy of this document upon Laura Hallahan by e-mail at lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com as permitted by TTR 221(11). I declare that the above statements are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. Dated: February 5, 2025 /s/ Thomas P. Christy