motion for reconsideration.pdf

Good Properties Petitioner V City Of Oak Park Respondent · 26-002901-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

 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION



GOOD PROPERTIES, LLC,

 Docket No. 26-002901

 Petitioner,

v.



CITY OF OAK PARK,



 Respondent.



 Jason C. Long (P59244)

 WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER

 & PLUNKETT, PC

 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

 Birmingham, MI 48009

 (248) 642-0333

 Attorneys for Petitioner



 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal



 Petitioner Good Properties, LLC (“Good Properties”), by and through its



attorneys, Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC, moves this honorable Tribunal



under TTR 261 to reconsider its October 6, 2026 Order of Dismissal. A copy of that



Order is attached as Exhibit A. With due respect, the Order of Dismissal errs in



concluding that this appeal duplicates the issue in Docket No. 26-002900. That



appeal seeks correction of the subject property’s 2025 taxable value after



Respondent’s July Board of Review denied Good Properties’ application requesting



correction of a qualified error. This appeal seeks correction of the 2026 taxable value



following a March Board of Review protest. Petitioner therefore respectfully requests



that the Tribunal enter an Order reinstating this case and further explains as follows.



 1

Background



 1. Good Properties owns residential real property commonly known as



13620 Pearson Ave., Oak Park, Michigan, identified as Parcel No. 25-31-276-074 (the



“Subject Property”). In the 2025 tax year, Respondent increased the Subject



Property’s taxable value to equal its assessed value. Good Properties did not appeal



in 2025. It did protest the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to Respondent’s 2026



March Board of Review. Good Properties also sought relief from Respondent’s 2026



July Board of Review for the 2025 increase, pursuant to MCL 211.53b and MCL



211.27a(4). Both the March Board of Review and the July Board of Review denied



any relief.



 2. Good Properties then filed two petitions in the Tribunal. The Petition



in this appeal identifies 2026 as the year under appeal. It seeks reduction of the



Subject Property’s 2026 taxable value from $136,700 to $44,273. The Petition



explains that Good Properties protested the Subject Property’s assessment before the



2026 March Board of Review. A copy of that Petition without its underlying Exhibits



is attached as Exhibit B.



 3. The Petition in Docket No. 26-002900 pertains to the Subject Property’s



2025 taxable value. It followed Good Properties’ application to Respondent’s July



Board of Review under MCL 211.53b and MCL 211.27a(4), which requested that the



July Board of Review revise the Subject Property’s 2025 taxable value due to a



“qualified error.” That Petition requests that the Tribunal correct the Subject



 2

Property’s 2025 taxable value from $134,400 to $43,110. A copy of that Petition,



without its underlying exhibits, is attached as Exhibit C.



 ThePetitionsArisefromDifferentProceduresandSeekDifferentRelief



 6. The appeals concern different tax years, arise through different review



procedures, and request different relief. Under MichProps,LLCvMeridianTwp,



491 Mich 518, 543–546 (2012), the Tribunal may consider an earlier erroneous



taxable value when determining the correct taxable value for a subsequent year



properly before it. This direct 2026 appeal therefore presents an independent claim



for relief for 2026. This appeal preserves Good Properties’ challenge to the Subject



Property’s taxable value for 2026, even if Good Properties cannot obtain relief for



2025 in Docket No. 26-002900. Good Properties believes that its appeal from the July



Board of Review in Docket No. 26-002900 is meritorious. Even if the Tribunal were



to disagree, that should not foreclose Good Properties’ rights to seek relief for 2026



when Good Properties has taken all the required steps, including protesting at the



March Board of Review and filing a timely petition, to contest the 2026 assessment.



 7. TTR 261(1) permits reconsideration of an order upon a motion filed



within 21 days after its entry. That rule applies in the Small Claims Division through



TTR 201(3). Under the standard in MCR 2.119(F)(3), applied through TTR 201(5),



reconsideration is appropriate when there has been a palpable error that misled the



Tribunal and the parties requiring a different disposition. With due respect to the



Tribunal, the error here is the conclusion that the 2026 claim is already pending in



Docket No. 26-002900. That appeal pertains to 2025, arose from an application to



 3

the July Board of Review, and involves the July Board of Review’s powers under MCL



211.53b including the power to correct a qualified error. This appeal pertains to 2026



and arose from Respondent’s March Board of Review denying Petitioner any relief.



Correcting that error requires reinstatement of this appeal, which is a different



disposition.



 ConclusionandRequestforRelief



 Wherefore, Good Properties respectfully requests that the Tribunal grant



reconsideration and reinstate this appeal.



 Respectfully submitted,



 Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC



 By: /s/ Jason C. Long

 Jason C. Long (P59244)

 Attorneys for Petitioner

Dated: October 6, 2026



 4

Exhibit A

October 6 2026 Order of Dismissal

Vo



 STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON |. BROWN, DPA

 GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR



 Good Properties,

 Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION



 A

 MTT Docket No. 26-002901

 City Of Oak Park,

 Respondent.



 ORDER OF DISMISSAL



 The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that:



 The issue in this case is already pending in another case and, as such, this appeal is

 duplicative and shall be dismissed.



 Therefore,



 IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.



 This order resolves all pending issues and closes the 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



 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

MTT Docket No. 26-002901

Page 2 of 2



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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm



Entered: October 6, 2026



 PROOF OF SERVICE



 | 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

Exhibit B

Petition Appealing the 2026 Taxable Value

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

 GOVERNOR DIRECTOR

 LANSING



 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

 VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL



 MTT DOCKET NO.



 Petitioners Contact Information:

 Filer Type: Local Unit of Government:

 Organization



 First Name MI, Tast Name,

 Good Properties



 Mailing Address (No, Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

 c/o 380 N. Old Woodward Ave.

 Ste. 300



 City or Town State IP Code

 Birmingham Michigan 48009



 Telephone Number

 2486420333



 E-mail Address

 jlong@wwrplaw.com



 Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representatives Contact Information, if any:

 First Name [a Last Name

 Jason c Long



 Firm Name (if any)

 Willams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC



 ‘Address (No, Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

 380 N. Old Woodward Ave.

 Suite 300



 City or Town State ZIP Code

 Birmingham Michigan 48009



 Telephone Number

 2486420333



 E-mail Address

 jlong@wwrplaw.com



 Subject Property Information:

 How many parcels are you appealing? if you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining?

 1 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel



 N/A

 Property Address (No, Street)

 13620 Pearson Ave.



 10of3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

 GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR



 City or Town County State 21P Code



 Oak Park. ‘Oakland Michigan 48237



 Taxing Authority (City or Township)

 City Of Oak Park (OAKLAND)



 Check which of the following you are appealing: (check all that apply)



 Uncapping of Taxable Value



 Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:

 Petitioner requests that the Tribunal correct the subject property's taxable value for the 2026 tax year. The subject property is a multifamily income property.

 During 2024, Air Force veteran Tereal Wilson owned the subject property and operated it as a sole proprietorship. On June 28, 2024, Mr. Wilson conveyed the

 subject property to Petitioner Good Properties, LLC, which he organized and in which he is the only member. Accordingly, under the General Property Tax Act,

 Mr. Wilson's conveyance to Good Properties, LLC, was not a “transfer of ownership.” Nevertheless, for the 2025 tax year, Respondent increased the subject

 property's taxable value to equal its assessed value. That increase in the subject property's taxable value continued into the 2026 tax year. Petitioner sought to

 have this corrected at the City of Oak Park 2026 March Board of Review, but it merely asserted that it lacked j for 2025 without ig the

 uncapping affecting the 2026 taxable value. Petitioner therefore requests that the Tribunal revise the subject property's 2026 taxable value to the amount that it

 would have been absent the incorrect increase in the subject property's taxable value based on the 2024 conveyance.



 Jurisdictional Issues:



 Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes



 Tf Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: March



 If No, please check the applicable reason(s):



 Year(s) Under Appeal:

 2026



 Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal:

 Parcel Number:

 25-31-276-074



 Classificationof Property: Real (check one)



 20f3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

 GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR



 Residential (check one)



 Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review:

 136700



 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

 136700



 ‘What do you believe is the fair market value?

 273400



 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here, This is your contention of Assessed Value.

 136700



 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

 24273



 Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

 Petitioner's Signature:



 /s/ Jason C. Long



 ‘Attorney or Authorized Agent's Signature:



 Isl



 Fee Information:



 If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for

 the filing of this appeal.



 The filing fee is based on the greaterof State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel

 with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each

 additional parcel being appealed.



 Property tax appeal:

 SEV or TV in contention*

 $100,000 or le:

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00...

 More than $500,000.



 Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

 No



 30f3

Exhibit C

Petition Appealing from the July Board of Review for 2025

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL



GOOD PROPERTIES, LLC,

 Docket No. 26-

 Petitioner, Parcel No. 25-31-276-074

v.



CITY OF OAK PARK,



 Respondent.



 Jason C. Long (P59244)

 WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER

 & PLUNKETT, PC

 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

 Birmingham, MI 48009

 (248) 642-0333

 Attorneys for Petitioner



 Petition Appealing from 2026 July Board of Review



 Petitioner Good Properties, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Williams



Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Petition Appealing from



2026 July Board of Review.



 The Parties



 1. Petitioner Good Properties, LLC (“Good Properties”), is a Michigan



limited liability company with its registered offices located at 813 Beaconsfield St.,



Unit 2N, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan 48230.



 2. Respondent City of Oak Park is a Michigan municipal corporation with



its principal offices located at 14000 Oak Park Blvd., Oak Park, Michigan 48237.

The Subject Property



 3. Petitioner is the owner of property identified as tax parcel number 25-



31-276-074, commonly known as 13620 Pearson Ave., Oak Park, Michigan 48237 (the



“Subject Property”).



 4. The Subject Property is currently used for multi-family residential



purposes.



 5. The Subject Property is classified as residential real property.



 6. The Subject Property is located in Oakland County and is within the



Oak Park public school district and the Oakland County intermediate school district.



 The 2024 Conveyance



 7. Through June 27, 2024, Air Force veteran Tereal Wilson owned the



Subject Property. During that time, he was using the Subject Property as an income-



generating property rented to tenants. Mr. Wilson was therefore acting as a sole



proprietor.



 8. Mr. Wilson organized Good Properties as a Michigan limited liability



company. A copy of Good Properties’ Articles of Organization is attached to this



Petition as Exhibit A.



 9. Mr. Wilson is the sole member of Good Properties. A copy of Good



Properties’ Operating Agreement is attached to this Petition as Exhibit B.



 10. On or about June 28, 2024, Mr. Wilson conveyed the Subject Property to



Good Properties. Mr. Wilson's purposes for conveying the Subject Property to Good



Properties included limitation of liability because the Subject Property is used as an

income-producing property. A copy of Mr. Wilson's Quit Claim Deed conveying the



Subject Property to Good Properties is attached to this Petition as Exhibit C.



 Respondent Erroneously “Uncapped” the Subject Property’s

 Taxable Value for the 2025 Tax Year



 11. For the 2024 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property's



assessment in the following amounts:



 True cash value Assessed value Taxable value

 $254,600 $127,300 $41,814



 12. Respondent established the Subject Property's 2025 assessment in the



following amounts:



 True cash value Assessed value Taxable value

 $268,800 $134,400 $134,400



 138. Respondent established the Subject Property’s 2025 taxable value in the



amount set forth in Paragraph 12 based on Respondent's conclusion that Mr. Wilson's



conveyance to Good Properties during June 2024 was a “transfer of ownership” as the



General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines that term.



 14. Mr. Wilson's conveyance to Good Properties during June 2024, however,



qualifies as a conveyance among commonly controlled entities and otherwise is



excluded from the definition of “transfer of ownership” under the GPTA.



 15. Accordingly, the increase in the Subject Property's taxable value from



2024 to 2025 was an error. Under the GPTA, the Subject Property’s taxable value for



2025 could not exceed $43,110.

Petitioner's Appeal to the 2026 July Board of Review



 16. Under MCL 211.53b, a municipality’s July Board of Review may correct



a “qualified error.” MCL 211.53b(1). A “qualified error” includes “An adjustment



under section 27a(4)” of the GPTA. MCL 211.53b(6)(c).



 17. Section 27a(4) of the GPTA provides that if a property's taxable value



was increased based on the property experiencing a “transfer of ownership,” when in



fact no transaction qualifying as a transfer of ownership occurred, the increase in the



taxable value may be corrected for the current year and as many as three preceding



years. See MCL 211.27a(4).



 18. Accordingly, Respondent's July Board of Review possesses authority to



correct an increase in a property’s taxable value based on a transfer of ownership



when in fact no transaction qualifying as a transfer of ownership occurred, including



correcting a property's taxable value in the preceding year. See MCL 211.53h(1).



 19. Under MCL 211.53b(2), “Action under subsection (1) may be initiated by



the taxpayer or the assessing officer.” Thus, either the taxpayer or the assessing



officer may request that the July Board of Review correct a qualified error such as an



increase in a property's taxable value based on a transfer of ownership when in fact



no transaction qualifying as a transfer of ownership occurred.



 20. On July 14, 2026, Good Properties submitted a request for Respondent’s



2026 July Board of Review to revise the Subject Property's 2025 taxable value



because Mr. Wilson's conveyance to Good Properties was a conveyance among



commonly controlled entities and therefore did not qualify as a transfer of ownership.

21. Good Properties’ request to Respondent's 2026 July Board of Review



explained that under MCL 211.27a(7)(m), “A transfer of real property or other



ownership interests among . . . limited liability companies . . . or other legal entities



if the entities involved are commonly controlled,” is excluded from the definition of



“transfer of ownership” that authorizes a property's taxable value to increase and



equal its assessed value. A copy of Good Properties’ request to Respondent’s 2026



July Board of Review is attached to this Petition as Exhibit D.



 22. Good Properties’ request further explained that in the State Tax



Commission's Transfer of Ownership Guidelines, the State Tax Commission (the



“STC”) addresses scenarios that qualify for the “common control” exclusion. The STC



explains that an individual's conveyance of property to an entity such as a limited



liability company is a conveyance among commonly controlled entities, and is not a



transfer of ownership, when there is a business purpose, and when the ownership



interests and extent of control that the individual possessed in the property are



identical to that which the individual possesses in the entity:



 Initial transfers by individuals of a fee simple interest in a property,

 made to an entity such as a corporation, a limited liability company or a

 partnership, are considered to be transfers between commonly

 controlled entities and not transfers of ownership, if the ownership

 interests and extent of control which the individuals have in the entity

 are identical to the ownership interest and extent of control which each

 of the individuals had in the property prior to the initial transfer.

 Transfers to limited partnerships would not qualify for the reason that

 such transfers involve a change in control.



State Tax Comm'n, Transfer of Ownership Guidelines (2025), p 34. A copy of the



Transfer of Ownership Guidelines is attached to this Petition as Exhibit E.

The 2026 July Board of Review Does Not Grant Relief



 23. On July 22, 2026, Respondent wrote to Good Properties that “After



review of the submitted documents and information, no qualified error was verified



under MCL 211.53b. As a result, no corrective was presented to the July Board of



Review for approval, and the Board took no action.” A copy of Respondent's letter is



attached to this Petition as Exhibit F.



 24. Respondent's 2026 July Board of Review erred when it failed to correct



the qualified error that occurred when the Subject Property’s 2025 taxable value was



increased to equal the Subject Property's 2025 assessed value based on Mr. Wilson's



June 2024 conveyance to Good Properties.



 25. Petitioner contends that a lawful 2025 assessment for the Subject



Property equals the following amounts:



 True cash value Assessed value Taxable value

 $268,800 $134,400 $43,110



 26. The amounts in dispute for the 2025 tax year therefore equal the



following amounts:



 True cash value Assessed value Taxable value

 $0 $0 $91,290



 27. The Subject Property's 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan



Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles



and information, and (c) otherwise violates Petitioner's rights.

Conclusion and Request for Relief



 WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal



enter judgment revising the Subject Property's 2025 assessment to the amounts set



forth in Paragraph 25 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which



it is entitled.



 Respectfully Submitted,



 WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER

 & PLUNKETT, PC



 By: /s/ JasonC. Long

 Jason C. Long (P59244)

Dated: July 29, 2026 Attorneys for Petitioner

← View full record