SUBMITTED - Brief to SC Petition_CJOHNSON_7.31.2025.pdf
David Johnson, Connie Johnson, Petitioners V Township Of Cohoctah, Respondent · 25-003050-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
Petitioner – SEV – Valuation Appeal Case No. 25 - 003050 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Lansing pg. 1 Johnson, Connie & David, Petitioners, v. Cohoctah Township, Respondent. File No. Hon. DUGGAN BERTSCH, PLLC Jessica Dadas-Schulze (P71711) 41000 Woodward Ave., Suite 350 East Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (248) 206-8636 jdschulze@dugganbertsch.com ATTACHMENT TO PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 2025 Property Tax Assessment for Petitioner’s Residence located at 6426 Oak Grove, Howell, Michigan 48855 BRIEF Petitioner challenges the Respondent’s 2025 assessed True Cash Value (TCV), State Equalized Value (SEV), and Taxable Value (TV) for the subject property located at 6426 Oak Grove. The property was purchased in October 2024 for $560,000, after being listed for 230 days with multiple price reductions from its initial $700,000 asking price. Respondent initially assessed the SEV at $435,700 (implying an $871,400 TCV), later reduced by the March Board of Review to $365,900 (TCV $731,800), yet this remains substantially above the property's fair market value as demonstrated by actual market data. Petitioner respectfully requests the Tribunal to reduce the 2025 SEV to $280,000, which reflects 50% of the verified market purchase price and aligns with Michigan law.
Page 2
Petitioner – SEV – Valuation Appeal Case No. 25 - 003050 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Lansing pg. 2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW A. Legal Standard Under MCL 211.27(1), True Cash Value is defined as the usual selling price of a property in an arm’s-length transaction. Michigan courts recognize that a recent arm’s-length sale is strong evidence of TCV. SEV is required to be 50% of TCV under MCL 211.27a(1). When a property has had a transfer of ownership, the Taxable Value shall equal the SEV. B. Issue Does the Respondent’s 2025 assessed value of $731,800 (TCV) accurately reflect the fair market value of the subject property as of December 31, 2024, despite a recent arm’s-length sale at $560,000? Did the Respondent use the correct and current Assessor Guidelines for the subject property, or was the SEV inflated using a “chasing sales” formula referenced only in guides dating back twenty years or more? PETITIONER’S STIPULATED FACTS 1. The subject property is a single-family home located at 6426 Oak Grove, on five acres, approximately 2,636 sq ft, built in 2002, with a walkout basement, pond, and pole barn. 2. The property was sold in an open-market transaction for $560,000 in October 2024 after being listed for 230 days and experiencing multiple price reductions. 3. The SEV for 2025 was initially set at $435,700 but was reduced to $365,900 by the March Board of Review. 4. No material improvements or renovations were made between the Petitioner’s purchase of the subject property and 12/31/2024. 5. The property includes a driveway easement serving a second home at the rear of the parcel. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE Listing and MLS History: The subject was listed at $700,000 and sold for $560,000 after 230 days on the market and several price reductions. 2021 Sale: The same property sold in 2021 for $550,000 after 57 days on the market.
Page 3
Petitioner – SEV – Valuation Appeal Case No. 25 - 003050 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Lansing pg. 3 No Significant Updates: MLS sheets from 2021 and 2024 show no new listing updates to justify the assessor’s contention as to the property’s value and alleged appreciation. Comparable Sales Provided: o 8525 Jonera: $597,000 (larger home and lot, more updated). o 6939 Sanford: $480,000 (smaller, natural gas, SEV uncapped at $186,600). o 2142 Chase: $482,500 (similar size, smaller lot, uncapped SEV under 50%). SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Comparable 1 – 8525 Jonera: Sold for $597,000 in 11/2024. Larger home (2,800 sq ft) on ten acres, built in 1978 but significantly updated. Despite these upgrades and larger land size, it sold for only $37,000 more than the subject. Comparable 2 – 6939 Sanford: Sold in 11/2022 for $480,000. Smaller home on 2.6 acres, with natural gas. 2023 SEV after uncapping was $186,600 — well below 50% of market value. Highlights disparity with subject’s SEV of $365,900. Comparable 3 – 2142 Chase: Sold for $482,500 in 2023. Similar home on a 1.27-acre lot, also has a pole barn and natural gas. Uncapped SEV for 2024 was below 50% of sale price. These comparable sales of residential properties in the vicinity of subject property demonstrate that assessments within the Township for similar or superior homes often remain under 50% of sale prices, suggesting unequal treatment and lack of uniformity.
Page 4
Petitioner – SEV – Valuation Appeal Case No. 25 - 003050 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Lansing pg. 4 SUBJECT PROPERTY CONDITION & REPAIRS No renovations since at least 2021. The roof appears original, per photos. At 22 years old, major components (roof, HVAC, septic, etc.) may soon require replacement. No record of upgrades justifying any increased assessment. Driveway easement across the parcel reduces marketability; other comps do not have this burden. Visual impact of neighboring property clutter (visible vehicles, condition concerns) may also diminish subject’s market appeal. These factors negatively impact the property’s desirability and therefore value and were not adequately accounted for in the 2025 SEV. REQUESTED RELIEF Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal reduce the 2025 SEV to $280,000, consistent with 50% of the verified 2024 purchase price of $560,000. This request reflects the property’s actual market value and aligns with Michigan’s statutory requirement that SEV equals half of TCV. The Petitioner respectfully submits this Petition to the Tribunal with its thanks to both Tribunal, and Respondent, for their time and consideration of the facts and information provided in this brief.