5 - 2026.09.04 Answer (Flattened with Exhibit).pdf
White Birch Lakes Recreational Association Petitioner Vs. Township Of Lincoln Respondent · 26-001270-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON |. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR White Birch Lakes Recreational Association | MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, \Y% MTT Docket No. :26-001270-TT Township of Lincoln Respondent. ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX ANSWER 1. X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, state the parcel number for the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue: (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Answer Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. X__ Admit Deny. If denied, the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petitionis ___ real ___ personal. 3. X__Admit ___ Deny. If denied, identify the contiguous and non-contiguous parcels by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 4. NA Admit Deny. If denied, identify the parcel or parcels of personal property that are not located on a parcel of real property under appeal by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 5. NA Admit ___ Deny. a. If denied, state when the personal property statements were filed, if at all: b. On what date did the March Board of Review commence: 6. X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, state the classification of the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue: 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
Page 2
MTT Docket No. :26-001268-TT Page 2 of 4 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): NA Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): NA Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, state the facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, in what County are the property or properties located in and what is the address of the property or properties: X Admit ___ Deny. If denied, what is the applicable local governmental unit: X__ Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): If the property’s taxable value is at issue, was there an addition or loss for purposes of establishing the property’s taxable value for the tax year or years at issue? Yes Xx No.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. :26-001268-TT Page 3 of 4 14. x Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): 15. NA Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $78,000 $39,000 $3,983 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $78,000 $39,000 $3,983 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $78,000 $39,000 $3,983
Page 4
MTT Docket No. :26-001268-TT Page 4 of 4 19. 20. 21. 22. Admit X Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): Respondent relies on the reasoning contained in the summary disposition order issued on January 25, 2023 by the Tribunal in Case No.20-001899, previously litigated between the parties. Admit X_ Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): Petitioner is raising the exact same argument it raised in the 2020 case referenced above, and the facts have not changed materially. Respondent relies on the Tribunals reasoning in the January 25, 2023, order. List any separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies to support every ground on which Respondent relies and also has the burden of proof (attach additional page if necessary): The value of the parcels at issue in this case has not been included in the value of other parcels in the development. List affirmative defenses and the separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies in support of those affirmative defenses (attach additional page if necessary): The property in question has been correctly assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Michigan Constitution and the General Property Tax Act. Signature of Respondent's Authorized Representative or, if none, Respondent: /s/ Andrew C. Thompson (P67984) Printed Name of Respondent's Authorized Representative or, if none, Respondent: Andrew C. Thompson (P67984) Email Address: athompson2midlandmilawyers.com Mailing Address: 143 McDonald Street Midland, Ml 48640 Telephone Number: 989-832-1770 Date: September 4, 2026
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 P.O. BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 517-335-9760 White Birch Lakes Recreation Association, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MOAHR Docket No. 20-0018991 Lincoln Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Steven M. Bieda ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT PARTIAL FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION On December 3, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal enter summary judgment in its favor. More specifically, Petitioner contends that due to the restrictions in the chain of title for the five parcels at issue, the properties have no value or minimal value for assessment purposes. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the value of the parcels has historically been attributed to the individual lot owners’ real property valuations. Petitioner also seeks an award of any of its costs and fees. On December 22, 2021, Respondent filed a response to the Motion. Respondent asserts that the properties were properly assessed, noting that the subject properties’ valuations were added to the rolls as “omitted property” and relying on MCL 1 On October 1, 2021, the Tribunal consolidated MOAHR docket numbers 20-001899, 20-001907, 20- 001909, and 20-001910. The Order indicates the consolidated case shall be referred to as the above- captioned docket number. EXHIBIT
Page 6
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 2 of 10 211.34d(1)(b)(i) as justification for taxation. Respondent asserted that the omitted property “was in existence that was not already on the tax roll and is not exempt from taxation.”2 Respondent agrees with Petitioner that Summary Disposition is appropriate, but that the facts lend themselves to summary disposition in favor of Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition be denied, and that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition be granted. The Tribunal has reviewed the Motion, response, and the evidence submitted and finds that denying Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition and rendering summary disposition in favor of Respondent is appropriate. Further, Petitioner has not shown good cause for an award of costs or fees. PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS In support of its Motion, Petitioner contends that the five parcels at issue in this case are unplatted common areas, pursuant to a recorded settlement agreement, for the use and enjoyment of its members, the lot owners of a private residential development known as White Birch Lakes of Clare. Since the development of White Birch Lakes of Clare in 1970, and continuing after Petitioner took title to the five parcels at issue in 1984, Petitioner states that Respondent never levied tax on the subject parcels instead distributed the value of these common areas to the individual lot owners’ valuations. In 2020, for the first time, Respondent placed a value on the tax roll for each of the five subject properties’, adding value as omitted property. Petitioner asserts that the five parcels at issue are restricted in their use as common areas by recorded agreement 2 Respondent’s brief in support, filed December 22, 2021, conclusion, pages 10-11.
Page 7
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 3 of 10 and other recorded documents affecting the entire White Birch Lakes of Clare development; thus, the five parcels have no, or minimal, value. Petitioner cites Lochmoor Club v Grosse Pointe Woods3 and CAF Investment v Saginaw,4 in support of its position that “various types of real property restrictions or limitations [can] affect valuation.”5 Petitioner claims that the “Tribunal has previously acknowledged the necessity of considering real property restrictions of valuation purposes,”6 and cites Moon Lake Property Owners Ass’n v Twp of Greenwood,7 a Tax Tribunal case purporting to support this claim. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS In response to Petitioner’s motion, Respondent contends that it properly added the subject properties’ assessments to the tax roll as omitted property for the 2020 tax year. Respondent cites MCL 211.1 which states that “[a]ll property, real and personal, in Michigan, not expressly exempted, is subject to taxation.” Respondent further contends that it has the “duty to annually assess all the property in the township that is subject to taxation.”8 Respondent argues that because it determined in its annual assessment that “Petitioner’s property was omitted property that was in existence that was not already on the tax roll and is not exempt from taxation,”9 it was required to include it in the 2020 assessment under MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i). 3 Lochmoor Club v Grosse Pointe Woods, 10 Mich App 394; 159 NW2d 756 (1968). 4 CAF Investment Co v Saginaw, 410 Mich 428; 302 NW2d 164 (1981). 5 Petitioner’s brief at 16. 6 Id. 7 Moon Lake Property Owners Ass’n v Twp of Greenwood, 1993 Mich Tax Lexis 30 (MTT Docket No. 142702). 8 MCL 211.10(1). 9 Respondent’s brief at 8.
Page 8
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 4 of 10 Regarding Petitioner’s argument that the subject property has zero or only minimal value due to the use restrictions, Respondent argues that there is actually “no deed restriction contained in the chain of title for the subject property.” Respondent argues that because the restrictions are contained in the settlement agreement, and not on the face of the deed, the restrictions are self-imposed. Respondent cites NeBoShone Ass’n, Inc. v State Tax Comm.10 and Canada Creek Ranch Ass’n Inc v Montmorency Twp11 where the Court of Appeals “held that restrictions on the sale or corporate property arising out of a corporation’s bylaws may not be considered in assessing the taxable value of the corporate property. Neither a private individual nor a corporation may rely on self-imposed restrictions on the sale of property as a means of avoiding taxes.”12 Thus, Respondent argues that “if the Settlement Agreement does contain restrictions any of the barriers to development of the property were created by Petitioner.”13 Finally, Respondent asserts that it “does not have any property in Lincoln Township that is ‘assessed with’ other property as that is contrary to CAMA standards and outside of STC Guidelines.” Further, Petitioner provided no support for its claim that the subject properties’ valuations were ever attributed to the individual lot owners’ real property valuations. STANDARD OF REVIEW There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 10 NeBoShone Ass’n, Inc. v State Tax Comm., 58 Mich App 324; 227 NW2d 358 (1975). 11 Canada Creek Ranch Ass’n Inc v Montmorency Twp., 206 Mich App 498; 522 NW2d 690 (1994). 12 NeBoShone, Supra and Canada Creek, Supra. 13 Respondent’s Brief at 10.
Page 9
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 5 of 10 decision on such motions.14 In this case, Petitioner moves for summary disposition under Administrative Hearing Rule 792.10129, which permits the administrative law judge to issue a decision granting summary disposition on all or part of a proceeding if it is determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact. The Michigan Rules of Court pertaining to such an action is MCR 2.116(C)(10). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim and must identify those issues regarding which the moving party asserts there is no genuine issue of material fact. Under subsection (C)(10), a motion for summary disposition will be granted “when the affidavits or other documentary evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”15 The Michigan Supreme Court has established that a court must consider affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed by the parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.16 The moving party bears the initial burden of supporting its position by presenting its documentary evidence for the court to consider.17 The burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists.18 Where the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue rests on a non-moving party, the non-moving party may not rely on mere allegations or denials in pleadings but must go beyond the pleadings to set forth 14 See TTR 215. 15 Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc, 500 Mich. 1, 5; 890 NW2d 344 (2016) (citation omitted). 16 See Quinto v Cross and Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996) (citing MCR 2.116(G)(5)). 17 See Neubacher v Globe Furniture Rentals, Inc, 205 Mich App 418, 420; 522 NW2d 335 (1994). 18 Id.
Page 10
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 6 of 10 specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists.19 If the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence establishing the existence of a material factual dispute, the motion is properly granted.20 Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2) is appropriate “[i]f it appears to the court that the opposing party, rather than the moving party, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”21 Thus, under this rule the court may render judgment in favor of the opposing party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Tribunal has considered the issues raised by Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition, under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and Petitioner’s Request for Costs and Fees and finds that denying both Motions is appropriate. The Tribunal finds that the relevant facts appear to be undisputed, and the parties have filed copious amounts of evidence in support of their positions. As identified in the petition and amended petition and solidified at the prehearing conference for this consolidated case, Petitioner has appealed the properties’ true cash and taxable values for the 2020 tax year. However, this is not merely an appeal of the valuation of five parcels of property. Rather, as has been explained in Respondent’s response, there is first an issue of omitted property, as well as the valuation of the omitted property at issue in this appeal. The Tribunal finds, for the reasons set forth below, that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding whether the subject properties were properly added to the roll as omitted property for the 2020 tax year. However, there are genuine issues of material 19 See McCart v J Walter Thompson USA, Inc, 437 Mich 109, 115; 469 NW2d 284 (1991). 20 See McCormic v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 202 Mich App 233, 237; 507 NW2d 741 (1993). 21 See also Washburn v Michailoff, 240 Mich App 669; 613 NW2d 405 (2000).
Page 11
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 7 of 10 fact outstanding regarding the valuation of the omitted property that must be determined through the conducting of a hearing. The real property at issue is subject to taxation unless expressly exempted.22 Petitioner claims that the subject properties are not assessable to Petitioner as they have historically been spread among the association owners’ valuations. As asserted by Respondent, Petitioner has neither provided any evidence of this claim nor any authority for such purported action by Respondent. The Tribunal, likewise, does not find any authority for Petitioner’s allegation as Petitioner has not cited relevant authority exempting the subject properties from assessment against Petitioner. While it may be true that the subject properties have largely been omitted from Respondent’s tax roll until the 2020 tax year, there is no evidence that is due to the fact that the association owners have absorbed the tax accountability of the common areas. As such, the Tribunal does not find any merit to Petitioner’s claim and does not find this argument compelling. Next, Petitioner argues that the restricted use of the subject properties, by virtue of the recorded agreement, negatively affects the value of the properties such that the “parcels have no effective, or minimal value.”23 Before the Tribunal analyzes the chain of title and discusses the referenced recorded agreement and other documents Petitioner refers to, the Tribunal finds that this argument does not speak to whether the subject properties were omitted property; rather, it speaks to the valuation of the omitted property and whether the purported restricted use negatively affected the valuation of 22 See MCL 211.1. 23 Petitioner’s brief at 2.
Page 12
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 8 of 10 the property. As stated above, the Tribunal finds there are outstanding facts regarding the value placed on the rolls by Respondent and this issue shall proceed to hearing. Finally, regarding the omitted property at issue, “‘omitted real property’ means previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment.”24 Further, Omitted real property does not increase taxable value as an addition unless the assessing jurisdiction has a property record card or other documentation showing that the omitted real property was not previously included in the assessment. The assessing jurisdiction has the burden of proof in establishing whether the omitted real property is included in the assessment.25 With Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s Motion, Respondent submitted the 2019 and 2020 property record cards for the subject properties indicating that in 2019 subject properties were not assessed, with the exception parcel number 010-026-100- 09; this parcel number had land on the tax roll in 2019, but did not have any building value on the 2019 property record card. Respondent has proven that the subject properties were previously existing tangible real property not included in the assessment, exclusive of the land value for parcel number 010-026-100-09. As a result, the Tribunal finds that rendering summary disposition in Respondent’s favor, on this issue only, is appropriate under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Regarding Petitioner’s Request for Costs and Fees, Petitioner has not shown good cause for an award of costs and fees under the circumstances of the filing of the Motion. As such, Petitioner’s Motion is denied. 24 MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i). 25 Id.
Page 13
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 9 of 10 JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Costs and Fees is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Summary Disposition is rendered in favor of Respondent regarding the omitted property issue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case will be scheduled for a status conference to discuss the scheduling of a hearing to resolve the remaining valuation issue after the timeframe for the following appeal rights lapses. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the partial 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 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
Page 14
MOAHR Docket No. 20-001899 Page 10 of 10 for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. A claim of appeal must be filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals with the appropriate filing fee. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” You are required to file a copy of the claim of appeal with filing fee with the Tribunal in order to certify the record on appeal. The fee for certification is $100.00 in both the Entire Tribunal and the Small Claims Division, unless no Small Claims fee is required. By _____________________________ Entered: January 25, 2023 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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk