PIPER, exceptions to opinion (final).pdf
Debra Z Piper, Petitioner V Township Of Weldon, Respondent · 24-003520-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION DEBRA Z. PIPER, Tax Tribunal No. 24-003520 Petitioner, Parcel No. 12-101-004-00 v TOWNSHIP OF WELDON, Respondent. Rachel L. Hillegonds (P67684) Attorney for Petitioner Cunningham Dalman, P.C. 321 Settlers Road, PO Box 1767 Holland, MI 49422-1767 (616) 392-1821 PETITIONER’S EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Petitioner, Debra Z. Piper, through her attorneys Cunningham Dalman, PC, takes exception to the proposed Opinion and Judgment for the following reasons: 1. This appeal pertains to Petitioner’s property at 7854 Washtenaw Drive, Thompsonville, Michigan, tax parcel 12-101-004-00, located in Weldon Township, Benzie County (the “Property”). 2. The issue is whether the Mathieu Gast Act was properly considered and applied by the Assessor and the March Board of Review in determining the 2024 taxable value of the Property. 3. The 2024 value in question are as follows: TV Respondent’s (March BOR) Value $297,528 Petitioner’s Proposed Value $191,268 Value in Proposed Opinion $261,204
Page 2
4. The proposed Opinion and Judgment erroneously describes Petitioner’s contentions, and misapplies the facts: a. Petitioner does not contest that she spent $700,000 renovating the subject property. b. However, Petitioner’s records reflect she had a remaining balance on her construction contract of $238,718 as of January 1, 2022. This number included two line items which Petitioner argues should be subtracted (excluded) from the remaining cost because they are covered under the Mathieu Gast Act. First, the rough mechanicals of plumbing, heating and electric in the amount of $96,000, see “Rewiring”, “Plumbing fixtures”, “Light fixtures” and “Replace furnace + A’C + thermostat” on the Form 865 attached to Petitioner’s brief. Additionally, the kitchen cabinets had not yet been installed, which constituted $38,718 of the $65,000 on the Form 865 for “Replace dated interior woodwork”. The remaining balance of $104,000 was for insulation, drywall and completion of the project. 33% of this amount, $34,320, is what should be allocated for new construction in 2022, amounting to an increase of $17,160 in the taxable value in 2023. The taxable value of the Property in 2022 was $173,813, which was not objected to by Petitioner, so the taxable value in 2023 should have been increased to $196,709 ($173,813 x 1.033 + $17,160). Because the property was fully complete for the 2024 and 2025 tax years, the inflation rate multiplier would be applied to the 2023 TV, resulting in a revised TV of $206,544 for 2024 and $216,871 for 2025. c. Based on the above, the Taxable Value for 2024 should be $206,544, and the Taxable Value for 2025 should be $216,871. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reject the proposed Opinion and Judgment and set the Taxable Value for 2024 at $206,544, and the Taxable Value for 2025 at $216,871. Dated: September 29, 2025 /s/ Rachel L. Hillegonds Rachel L. Hillegonds (P67684) Attorney for Petitioner Cunningham Dalman, P.C.