November 10.pdf

Lynda Lisabeth, Petitioner V Township Of Onekama, Respondent · 25-003531-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

November 10, 2025

Dear Patricia Halm,

I am writing to follow up on my petition submitted to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT Docket

No. 25-003531). The letter I received indicated that I did not include a copy of the notice

giving rise to the appeal (for example, a notice of action taken by the Board of Review). I

would like to clarify the sequence of events that led to my petition to the Tribunal.

In 2024, we purchased property in Onekama, MI, identiﬁed as parcel 51-11-290-231-30

(PORTAGE PARK ADDITION LOTS 13 THROUGH 19, BLOCK 49, and LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 48).

We received a 2025 summer tax bill (No. 01013) reﬂecting a taxable value of $30,300 and a

total amount due of $1,200.05, which we paid in full.

Subsequently, we received a second tax bill for parcel 51-11-290-230-12, which lists LOTS 1

& 2, BLOCK 48—the same lots already included in the ﬁrst parcel per our purchase

agreement. This second bill (No. 01008) listed the identical taxable value and total amount

due. We believe this is an error, as the second parcel is not listed in our purchase

documents. To avoid late fees, we paid the bill but are seeking correction and

reimbursement.

Our tax bills did not include any guidance on how to address billing questions or

discrepancies. We attempted multiple times to contact the Township office by phone,

leaving messages that were not returned. When we eventually reached someone, we were

advised to ﬁle a petition with the Tax Tribunal. A later conversation with another Township

representative indicated that we may have missed a Board meeting. Given the confusion

and lack of response, we ﬁled the petition in an effort to resolve the error and obtain a

refund.

Sincerely,

Lynda D. Lisabeth, Ph.D., M.P.H.

(734) 775 7563

llisabet@umich.edu