24-004209.pdf

Ted A Slater, Petitioner V Township Of Marion, Respondent · 24-004209-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

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 

 

Ted A Slater, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004209 

 

 

Marion Township, 

 

Case Type: Disabled Veterans 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Exemption 

 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Samantha Welton, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

September 23, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Lisa Brazzil 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Matthew Dedes 

 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

Parcel No. 4710-35-203-036 shall be granted a Disabled Veterans Exemption under 

MCL 211.7b for the 2023 tax year. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner’s disabled veteran’s exemption affidavit was submitted to the 2024 December 

Board of Review (BOR). The BOR issued its decision on December 11, 2024. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on December 30, 2024, and Respondent filed 

an answer on January 9, 2025. 

 

The amount of the taxable value in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for the tax year 

at issue, is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether the subject property qualifies for a property tax 

exemption under MCL 211.7b. 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1).

MTT Docket No. 24-004209 

Page 2 of 5 

 

The petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to 

an exemption.2 MCL 211.7b(1) states: 

 

Real property used and owned as a homestead by either of the following 

individuals is exempt from the collection of taxes under this act: (a) A 

disabled veteran. (b) A surviving spouse of a disabled veteran who, 

immediately before death, was eligible for the exemption under this 

section. An exemption under this subdivision continues as long as the 

surviving spouse does not remarry, and the exemption applies to any 

property used and owned as a homestead by the surviving spouse, 

including homestead property acquired after the decedent’s death.3 

 

MCL 211.7b(2) states:: 

 

To obtain the exemption, an individual described in subsection (1)(a) or (b), 

or the individual’s legal designee, must file an application, in a form and 

manner prescribed by the state tax commission, showing the facts required 

by this section and a description of the real property with the assessing 

officer for the local assessing unit after January 1 and before December 31 

of the calendar year for which the exemption is claimed. The application 

when filed is open to inspection. The taxes subject to collection under this 

act shall be canceled for any year in which an individual described in 

subsection (1)(a) or (b) who is eligible for the exemption under this section 

has acquired title to real property exempt under this section. Upon granting 

the exemption under this section, each local taxing unit shall bear the loss 

of its portion of the taxes upon which the exemption has been granted. An 

exemption granted under this section as to taxes levied on or after January 

1, 2025 remains in effect, without subsequent reapplication, until it is 

rescinded by the individual who was granted the exemption or is denied by 

the assessor, as provided in section 7c.4 

 

MCL 211.7b(4)(a) defines a disabled veteran as a veteran who resides in Michigan and 

satisfies one of the following requirements: 

 

(i) Has been determined by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to be 

permanently and totally disabled as a result of military service and entitled to 

veterans’ benefits at the 100% rate. 

(ii) Has a certificate from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs certifying 

that the veteran is receiving or has received pecuniary assistance due to 

disability for specially adapted housing. 

(iii) Has been rated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as 

individually unemployable.5 

 

2 See ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002). 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-004209 

Page 3 of 5 

 

“Veteran” is defined as “an individual who served in the United States Armed Forces, 

including the reserve components, and was discharged or released under honorable 

conditions.”6 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 2 of the docket maintained in 

this case.7 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that they have a service-connected disability at the 100% rating and are entitled to the 

exemption. Mrs. Brazzil, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, stated that they petitioned to 

the December BOR, then to the Tribunal. They received the rating decision October 2, 

2024, to be effective to August 10, 2022. She believes Petitioner should have the 

exemption for 2023. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6-8 of the docket 

maintained in this case.8 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends 

that the 2024 December BOR did not have authority to grant Petitioner’s exemption for 

2023 if they did not request the exemption during the 2023 tax year. Mr. Dedes testified 

that the previous assessor denied this request, and he is picking up where he left off. 

The 2023 exemption was denied due to the December BOR not having authority over 

the tax year. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determination letter was effective 

as of August 10, 2022, but they did not receive the letter until the 2024 December BOR. 

The previous assessor encouraged Petitioner to appeal the denial to the Tribunal to get 

a determination whether they could get their exemption granted. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were found to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at 36 Abby Brook Lane, in Livingston County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 

3. Petitioner is the owner of the subject property. 

4. The subject property is used and owned as a homestead. 

 

6 MCL 211.7b(4)(c). 

7 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. 

8 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.

MTT Docket No. 24-004209 

Page 4 of 5 

 

5. The VA rated Petitioner at 100% totally and permanently disabled by a Rating 

Decision dated October 2, 2024. 

6. The VA Rating Decision determined Petitioner’s eligibility as of August 10, 2022. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

MCL 211.7b provides an exemption for a qualifying disabled veteran as long as all 

statutory requirements are met. The July and December BOR have authority to correct 

“qualified errors”, which is defined, in pertinent part, as: 

 

A delay in the determination by the United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs that a veteran is permanently and totally disabled as a result of 

military service and entitled to veterans' benefits at the 100% rate.9 

 

Here, Petitioner protested to the December BOR to request a disabled veteran’s 

exemption due to the VA delay in Petitioner’s determination. On October 2, 2024, the 

VA issued a Rating Decision indicating that Petitioner is granted a 100% service-

connected rating of totally and permanently disabled. The letter made this 

determination effective August 10, 2022. The delay in the VA determination is a 

qualified error that can be corrected by a December BOR. 

 

There is no issue regarding whether Petitioner used and owned the subject property as 

a homestead. Rather, the only rationale provided by Respondent for the denial was that 

they did not believe the December BOR had the authority to grant the exemption. The 

Tribunal finds that the December BOR erred in denying Petitioner’s exemption. As 

such, Petitioner is entitled to the exemption for the 2023 tax year. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken 

based on this decision. 

 

After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the 

exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: 

 

a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final 

Decision; 

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final 

Decision; or 

c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other 

action as is necessary and appropriate. 

 

 

9 MCL 211.53(i)(ii).

MTT Docket No. 24-004209 

Page 5 of 5 

 

EXCEPTIONS 

 

The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, 

by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing 

why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must 

be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any 

matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. 

 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of 

service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing 

party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the 

opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service 

(i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. 

 

The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party 

to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions 

and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. 

 

If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed 

proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the 

exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _________________________________ 

Entered: October 3, 2025 

 

 

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

← View full record