Exhibit A Detailed Reason for Appeal.pdf

Brian Berlinger Petitioner V Township Of Clay Respondent · 26-002885-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.

Exhibit A:



Detailed reason for appeal:



The petitioners purchased their home in July 2025 for $530,000. We are appealing the 2026

assessed and taxable values of $327,200 established by the Clay Township Michigan Board of

Review, which reflect an unreasonable assumed true cash value of $654,400. Petitioners have

supported their position with an independent appraisal and significant data and documents.

The Township’s assessment is based on incorrect data and grossly inaccurate market

assumptions.



In July of 2025, the petitioners paid $530,000 in an arms-length transaction that fairly

represented the true cash value of the home. If the SEV was adjusted to 50% of the true fair

market value, the uncapped taxable value of $265,000 would have been a substantial increase

over the prior owner’s taxable value of $229,500. The local assessor, however, increased it to

$320,800, representing a 21% increase over the true cash value of the home. (See Exhibit B).



In March 2026, the petitioners’ realtor, acting on petitioners’ behalf, submitted form L-4035

with a comprehensive list of comparable homes from April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2025 to

the Clay Township Board of review. Her analysis recommended a true cash value of $492,200

with a 50% taxable value of $246,000 (See Exhibit C). The analysis was thorough and

professional. The analysis used homes of similar square footage which also included some two-

story homes. A member of the Board of Review argued that only ranch homes should’ve been

used and refused to consider the recommendation. The same day, the petitioner’s agent

provided the Board with a list of ranch homes that clearly established the Township’s valuation

was improperly inflated. (See Exhibit D). The local assessor provided its own list of comparables

(See Exhibit E), but none of them substantiated a $641,600 market value for the property.



Despite this clear evidence, the Township not only did not reduce the assessment, it instead,

sent the petitioners an even higher assessment of $327,200 (See Exhibit F), indicating that the

covered boat hoist was not included in the property card. However, the property card

information sent from the township also included a picture of the covered boat hoist taken in

2003, some 23 years ago. The Township’s assessed true cash value of $654,400 is a 23.5%

increase in value in just six (6) months from the petitioners’ purchase of the home.



Also attached is a trend analysis of the property SEV values from 2017 to 2026 with percentage

increases and purchase prices (See Exhibit G).



Independent Appraisal:



In July 2026, the petitioners hired an independent certified appraisal company, (Schnoor Real

Estate Services LLC), to complete an appraisal and comprehensive neighborhood market



Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]

analysis. Schnoor appraised the True Cash Market value of the home at $550,000. A copy of the

appraisal is attached (see Exhibit H). The Schnoor appraiser came to the house and personally

measured the true square footage of the home and found it to be 1,984 sq ft, instead of the

township’s property card record of 2,124. The appraiser inspected all of the features of the

home as well as the detrimental deferred maintenance issues. The independent appraiser’s true

cash market value is much closer to our purchase price than the excessive taxable value from

the township. At 50% of the Schnoor appraiser’s True Cash Value, the Taxable Value and SEV

would be $275,000.



Detailed home information provided to Board of Review in March:



In addition to the market analysis provided to the Board of Review, the petitioners’ agent also

helped us submit a form L-4035 to show valuation discrepancies on the property. The square

footage of a home and the lot are not the only items that affect market value. (See Exhibit I).



The townships valuation fails to account for deferred maintenance present at the time of

uncapping; the roof was 22 years old, the boiler 22 years old, air-conditioner 22 years old, all at

or exceeding useful life. The petitioners have already installed a new roof ($25,400 in 2026). The

cement driveway is cracked and broken. The home, originally built in 1960, has significant brick

spalling around the perimeter. In addition, the crawl space has a wood structural beam versus

steel. The layout has two bedrooms, two baths with a den versus 3 bedrooms like most of the

comparables.



Home values in this canal subdivision, and any waterways, are also affected by the proximity or

distance from the river/lake. The subject home’s location is over a mile away from the river/lake

entrance. This distance requires a commute time of 45 minutes just to travel at no-wake speed

to and from the St. Clair River’s North Channel. In contrast, some homes on other streets, such

as Flamingo, Riverside, Parklane, etc. have just a few minutes commute time. For this reason,

homes on those streets with easy access to the river are more highly desired and therefore their

sale prices are impacted.



The Board of Review refused to reduce the assessed value for any issues our petition addressed.



Conclusion:



We respectfully request that the Tribunal correct the township’s unsupported Taxable Value of

$327,400 and revise the State Equalized Value and Taxable Value to $275,000, reflecting a lawful

50% of the property’s actual True Cash Value developed by the certified independent appraiser

(Schnoor Real Estate Services, LLC).



Brian & Denise Berlinger



Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]

Exhibits:



Exhibit A - This letter detailing the reason for the appeal



Exhibit B – Letter from the township on Tax Year 2016 – Assessment



Exhibit C – Form L-4035 Market Value Analysis taken to Board of Review



Exhibit D – Market Value Analysis of “Ranches Only” sent to township



Exhibit E – List of comparables sent from township



Exhibit F – Board of Review Decision



Exhibit G – Trend of SEV Values from 2017 – 2026



Exhibit H – Independent Schnoor Real Estate Services appraisal



Exhibit I – Form L-4035 Correction of valuation errors taken to Board of Review



Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]

← View full record