24-003458 valuation.pdf
Alnamer Investment LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003458-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 Alnamer Investment LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003458 City of Detroit, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL Personnel Presiding: Erissa J. Glekler, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: June 27, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Sam Miller Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Stacy Smith PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 31, 2024; Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 1, 2024. The amount of the SEV or 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 TCV. “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan may not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 TCV means “the usual selling price . . . being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction . . . or at forced sale.”5 The concepts of TCV and “fair market value” are synonymous.6 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 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).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003458 Page 2 of 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. Pursuant to MCL 211.27a, 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 new construction and omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 21002977-84 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $30,000 $15,000 $15,000 2025 N/A N/A N/A *Petitioner did not provide value contentions for the 2025 tax year. Petitioner offered no exhibits. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. Petitioner purchased the property for $30,000 in 2022; Petitioner is in the process of making improvements, but the assessments are not reflective of the property’s actual condition. Petitioner’s representative did not have an opportunity to submit any evidence in this case because they believed that a settlement had been reached. The parties’ representatives spoke on the phone a few times and Petitioner’s representative forwarded Respondent the numbers that they had agreed to, but was subsequently informed that its representative would no longer agree to those numbers. Petitioner’s representative was blindsided by the last-minute reversal and seeks a rehearing. Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Petitioner’s representative testified that they believed the parties had come to an agreement on settlement on or around June 10, 2025; Petitioner’s representative was 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.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003458 Page 3 of 6 not able to provide any testimony on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2022 sale of the property. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR: Parcel Number: 21002977-84 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $183,200 $91,600 $91,600 2025 $189,000 $94,500 $94,439 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5, 9, and 10 of the docket maintained in this case.11 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property is not assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. The parties did have a tentative agreement regarding settlement in this matter based on the condition asserted by Petitioner’s representative, but upon inspection of the property a few weeks prior to hearing, it was found to be in much better condition than indicated. Respondent provided sales information for various commercial properties in the area. Sales prices range between $80,000 and #350,000. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 17505 E. Warren in Wayne County. 2. The subject property is classified as commercial. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”12 “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.”13 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an independent determination of value,14 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with 11 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. 12 MCL 205.737(3). 13 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 14 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981).
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003458 Page 4 of 6 evidence.”15 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”16 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.17 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”18 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.19 “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.”20 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”21 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.”22 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.23 “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.”24 The condition of the subject property is the primary basis of Petitioner’s appeal in this case, but there is no documentary evidence on file establishing its condition as of the relevant valuation dates for the tax years at issue, and the testimony provided at the 15 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). 16 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). 17 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); 18 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 19 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. 20 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). 21 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). 22 MCL 211.27(1). 23 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 24 Id.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003458 Page 5 of 6 hearing is not sufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of going forward with the evidence on that point. Petitioner also failed to provide any documentary evidence of sales or other market-based evidence establishing the quantitative impact, if any, the asserted condition would have on the property’s TCV, and its representative could not testify to the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2022 sale of the property, which Respondent’s office deemed to be a non-arms-length transaction. As such, the Tribunal finds that the burden of going forward with the evidence did not shift to Respondent, and the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered. Involuntary dismissal of the case is warranted. Moreover, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner had sufficient notice and opportunity to timely file evidence and prepare its case for hearing. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 31, 2024, and the Tribunal issued a Notice of Filing on October 4, 2024, which indicated that the case was ready to be scheduled for hearing and that the parties were required to submit evidence to both the Tribunal and the opposing party at least 21 days in advance of the hearing. The hearing notice issued on April 15, 2025 reiterated the requirements for submission of evidence 21 days prior to hearing. Petitioner was thus given notice on two separate occasions as to the impending hearing and evidentiary filing requirements, and it had more than a year to prepare its case for hearing and to file documentation. While the parties may have been engaged in settlement discussions, this does not negate the requirement of preparing their respective cases for hearing. Indeed, upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Petitioner’s representative testified that the tentative settlement agreement was reached on or around June 10, 2025, which was several days beyond the evidentiary filing deadline. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 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. 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
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003458 Page 6 of 6 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: August 21, 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