scpetition_valuation.pdf

Elizabeth Hagen, Craig Hagen Petitioners V Township Of Fabius Respondent · 26-000871-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

1 of 4

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information:

Filer Type:

Individual

Local Unit of Government:

First Name

Elizabeth and Craig

M.I.

Last Name

Hagen

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

57520 Gearharts Landing Rd

City or Town

Three Rivers

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49093

Telephone Number

8102298981

E-mail Address

bethagen@gmail.com

Subject Property Information:

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining?

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

N/A 

Property Address (No., Street)

57520 Gearharts Landing Rd

City or Town

Three Rivers

County

Saint Joseph

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49093

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Fabius (SAINT JOSEPH)

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

True Cash and Taxable Values

 

Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

2 of 4

Reasons for this Appeal to Michigan Tax Tribunal

57520 Gearharts Landing Rd, Three Rivers, MI 49093 – Elizabeth & Craig Hagen

Elizabeth and Craig Hagen, 57520 Gearharts Landing Rd, Three Rivers, MI 49093, disagree with the Taxable Value Fabius Township set for their home in 2026. 

Below are the brief reasons they feel this way. Supporting data, details and documents are attached to this appeal as separate documents. They show that the 

Taxable Value and Assessed Value should be amended to $355,952.50.

1-Cost/Sales Comparison

Between 2022 and 2025, there were 14 homes that sold in the petitioners’ neighborhood. The homes ranged in selling price from $320,000 to $1,200,000. The 

Petitioners’ home was #10 out of 14 in that range; it sold for $745,000. The average selling price was $681,555. 

To find the Market Value (MV), the two homes closest in value in size and selling features were used. The average sale price of the three homes was $754,666. 

The sale prices of these homes were: $719,000, $745,000, and $800,000. The average was $754,666. The Township Assessor and Board of Review (BOR) placed a 

Taxable Value (TV) on the Petitioners’ home at $412,800 (doubled for Market Value = $825,600). The TV placed on the Petitioners’ home was valued by the BOR 

for $70,934 ($825,600 - $754,666) more than the average of the closest homes sold. The Market Value placed on the Petitioners’ home was valued by the BOR 

less the selling price was $825,600 – 745,000 = $80,600 over the sales price.

The TV and AV placed by the BOR were between $70,000 - $80,000 more than the average sales price and actual sales price. This figure does not take into 

account the repairs that were required to bring the Petitioners’ home to the quality of the neighborhood homes. The BOR had the attached photos and 

information for the March 2026 appeal with the Hagens. These photos show the Petitioners’ home has a lower quality and maintenance compared to the 

neighborhood. This affects the MV which should be reflected in the TV and AV. 

The BOR setting the TV and AV at $80,600 is not justified by the cost comparison. The TV and AV should be at or less than the Petitioners’ purchase price, not 

over $80,000 more than the purchase price.

Please see: Document #1 – Cost/Sales Comparison; Document #2 – Market Value for Petitioners’ Home; Document #3 – Taxable Value; along with the photo and 

data documents for support and details about the Petitioners’ appeal.

2- Market Value for Petitioners’ Home

Document #2 discusses the Market Value (MV) of the Petitioners’ home. It states the condition of the home at the time of the sale; major repairs were needed 

both outside and inside the home.

Quotes to repair just the deck, siding and gutters/eavestroughs were: $12,848 + $7,098 + $13,149 = $33,095. These do not address the other areas needing 

repaired; see the detailed documents for this information.

Taking just these repairs into account would bring the True Cash Value or Market Value down to $745,000 - $33,095 = $711,905.

Please see: Document #1 – Cost/Sales Comparison; Document #2 – Market Value for Petitioners’ Home; Document #3 – Taxable Value; along with the photo and 

data documents for support and details about the Petitioners’ appeal.

3-Taxable Value and Assessed Value set by Township Compared to Neighborhood Homes

The Township set the 2026 Taxable Value (TV) and Assessed Value (AV) for the Petitioners’ home at $80,600 more than the sales price. For the 2026 tax year, the 

Township also set the other 3 neighborhood homes, which sold in 2025 at: one close to the sales price - $3,200 more than the sales price; one $85,200 more than 

the sales price; and one $169,460 less than the sales price. These new TV were not consistent. There was no data available for why one home was given a TV of 

almost $170,000 less than the selling price and 2 other homes were given a TV of over $80,000 more than the selling price. The 2 homes given a higher than the 

selling price for their 2026 TV both appealed to the BOR. Both homes were denied any change to their TV.

This was only for the neighborhood home that sold in 2025. To support this data, the neighborhood homes which sold in 2023 and 2024 are also shown. Again, 

there is no consistence for why the Township set the TV for neighborhood homes. But for these years, the TV was set lower than the purchase price for 7 homes 

and 1 home was set higher than the purchase price. 

Setting the Petitioners’ TV and AV at $80,600 is not consistent with past practice. If the BOR had used past practice of setting the TV and AV at a lower value, then 

the Petitioners’ home would have been valued much lower. The TV and AV should have taken into consideration the condition of the Petitioners’ home and set 

the TV and AV lower than the purchase price – $355,952.50

Please see: Document #1 – Cost/Sales Comparison; Document #2 – Market Value for Petitioners’ Home; Document #3 – Taxable Value; along with the photo and 

data documents for support and details about the Petitioners’ appeal.

Supporting Data and Documents:

A- Appraisal Information for Petitioners’ home 11/21/25

B- Condition of Petitioners’ home at time of purchase 12/11/25

C- MLS Information Sheets for homes sold in Neighborhood

D- Assessment Notice for Petitioners’ home 2026

E- Denial Notice from Fabius Township Board of Review (BOR)

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

3 of 4

Jurisdictional Issues:

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

If 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:

7500416000300

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Residential (check one)

Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review:

412800

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

412800

What do you believe is the fair market value?

711905

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

355953

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

355953

 

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

Petitioner’s Signature: 

/s/ Elizabeth and Craig Hagen

Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature:

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

4 of 4

/s/ 

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 greater of 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: Residential** Non-Residential

SEV or TV in contention*

 

 Filing fee*** Filing Fee**

$100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A

More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A

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

Yes

← View full record