24-003610.pdf
Gigi Branham-Williams, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003610-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 GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 Gigi Branham-Williams, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003610 v Case Type: Valuation City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER OF DISMISSAL Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: October 31, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Gigi Branham-Williams Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Isaac DeGraffenreid PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 March BOR. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 1, 2024. Respondent filed an answer on October 23, 2024. The amount of the state equalized valued (SEV) or taxable value (TV) in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value (TCV). 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 2 of 7 “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market value.”6 The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of both in arriving at its determination.”8 The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the evidence.”11 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or reasoned opinion.”12 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 5 MCL 211.27(1). 6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 8 Id. at 356. 9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 10 See MCL 211.34d. 11 See also MCR 2.517(a). 12 Id.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 3 of 7 Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 22085136 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 None noted None noted None noted The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed at line-item entry 1 of the docket maintained in this case.13 The following exhibits were submitted into evidence: 1. Evidence, filed on July 1, 2024 a. 2024 March Board of Review Decision. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that they pay too much in taxes. Petitioner is the neighborhood block captain and is responsible for maintaining her street. Costs keep going up and Petitioner pays her taxes and works hard to maintain the neighborhood block. Petitioner has lived in her home for 25 years. On rebuttal, Petitioner does not understand the whole process. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year(s) at issue: Parcel Number: 22085136 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $185,200 $92,600 $25,711 The exhibits offered by Respondent(s) may be viewed at line-item entries 6 and 10 of the docket maintained in this case.14 The following exhibits were submitted into evidence: 1. Evidence, filed on October 23, 2024 a. 2024 Subject Property Record Card (excerpt). b. 2024 March Board of Review Decision. 2. Evidence, filed on October 28, 2025 a. Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid. No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 13 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case. 14 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 4 of 7 Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent states that they have driven by Petitioner’s property. Respondent offers a revised SEV of $72,000 but is unable to lower the SEV below the stated TV. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 15083 Artesian Street, in the city of Detroit and within Wayne County. 2. The subject property is classified as Residential. 3. Petitioner’s Petition did not include a contention of TCV, SEV, assessed value (AV), or TV. 4. Petitioner did not submit any documentation in support of a TCV contention. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.15 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.16 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”17 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.18 Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”19 “This burden encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”20 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an independent determination of value,21 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with evidence.”22 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to 15 MCL 205.735a(2). 16 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 17 Antisdale at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 18 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 19 MCL 205.737(3). 20 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 21 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 22 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333) citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App 379, 408- 410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998).
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 5 of 7 challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”23 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.24 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”25 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.26 “The ‘substantial evidence test’ has been defined as evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. While it consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence.”27 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”28 The “thing to be proven” in this case is the TCV of the property at issue. TCV is defined as “the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.”29 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.30 “Variations of these approaches and entirely new methods may be useful if found to be accurate and reasonably related to the fair-market value of the subject property.”31 Although Petitioner provided testimony, it is not sufficient to meet the burden of going forward in this case. First, Petitioner failed to provide contentions of TCV, SEV, AV, and TV for the subject property. Further, Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence to otherwise support any contention of value for the subject property. Respectfully, the Tribunal is unable to assume or ascertain Petitioner’s valuation appeal without any market value evidence. Overall, Petitioner failed to submit any market 23 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . . for the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike the plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward with evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination except that provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to hire its own appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 24 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); 25 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 26 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354-355 and Great Lakes v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App at 408-410. 27 Russo v Dep't of Licensing & Regul, 119 Mich App 624, 631; 326 NW2d 583, 587 (1982). See also Dow Chem Co v Dep't of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 28 Goff v Bil–Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507, 514 n 5; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), overruled on other grounds in Mudel v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed). See also Moore v Prestige Painting, 277 Mich App 437; 745 NW2d 816 (2007). 29 MCL 211.27(1). 30 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 31 Id.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 6 of 7 evidence by way of market sales data to otherwise change the subject’s TCV. Therefore, the burden of going forward did not shift to Respondent, and the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered. As such, involuntary dismissal of the case is warranted. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. This Order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By Entered: November 24, 2025 gc
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003610 Page 7 of 7 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk