Petition 500 Perry.pdf

Ahmed And Husna; Mohammed Arif; Syed Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Blanc Respondent · 26-000496-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and

Mohammed and Nayyar Syed,

Petitioners,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26_________

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

City of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and Mohammed and Nayyar Syed (“Petitioners”), through their

attorney Eva Cantarella at the law firm Hertz Schram PC, petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

Petitioners are individuals whose business address with respect to the Subject

Property is 2597 S. Shore Drive, Flushing, MI 48433-3515.

2.

The Subject Property is a two-story, six-unit, office building built in 1975 containing

14,416 square feet of gross leaseable space, situated on 2.93 acres located at 500 Perry Road, Grand

Blanc, Michigan, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 56-15-200-011.

3.

Petitioners are the parties in interest, as Petitioners are responsible for paying the

property taxes on the Subject Property.

4.

Respondent City of Grand Blanc levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject

Property.

5.

The Subject Property is classified 201 Commercial Improved and was built for its

current use as an office building.

1

6.

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is in the Grand Blanc

Community Schools school district.

7.

This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable

value.

8.

For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values for the Subject Property:

Respondent’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$1,086,800

$1,086,800

$1,081,093

9.

Petitioners did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the City of Grand Blanc 

Board of Review.

10.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined the

Subject Property’s true cash value to equal $2,173,600, which equates to $150.78/square foot

[$2,173,600 / 14,416 SF = $150.78].

11.

For the following reasons, Petitioners contend Respondent has over-valued the

Subject Property.

12.

Comparable sales indicate the Subject Property should be valued at approximately

$90/square foot, or $1,300,000 (rounded).

13.

Petitioners paid $1 million for the Subject Property in 2022.

14.

Although four of the six units were rented for most of 2025, on tax day only three of

the units totaling 9,072 SF (63%) were rented, leaving 5,344 SF (37%) vacant.

2

15.

Additionally, in early February 2026, the tenant in Suite 202, which has 2,443 SF,

notified Petitioners that it would vacate its space by April 5, 2026. This has increased the vacancy

rate to 54%.

16.

Petitioners have made no major improvements to the Subject Property other than to

replace the roof in 2023 (cost $28,093), repair interior damage caused by the storm that necessitated

the new roof (cost $10,187), replace one HVAC unit (cost $8,557), and repair a second HVAC (cost

$4,750)–for total cost of $51,587. Much work is still needed and the property also suffers from major

incurable drawbacks, as detailed below.

17.

Exterior: (i) The asphalt driveway and parking lot are severely degraded and need

to be completely resurfaced [estimated cost: $150,000]; (ii) the lengthy metal railing that surrounds

much of the building is in poor condition, rusty, and needs to be replaced [estimated cost: $90,000];

and (iii) much of the stone-in-cement work on the driveway side of building needs to be re-done.

18.

Interior: There is no elevator and no interior stairs to the 2nd floor, meaning the 2nd

floor can only be accessed by exterior stairs; and all vacant space, which is on the 2nd floor, is in fair

condition, needing a complete paint job, much drywall repair, much ceiling tile repair/replace; and

all flooring replaced.

19.

Given the foregoing, Petitioners contend the 2026 true cash value of the Subject

Property is $1,300,000 and therefore the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values should

be as follows:

Petitioner’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$650,000

$650,000

$650,000

3

20.

Petitioners are unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

21.

Should Petitioners hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioners reserve

the right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

22.

Petitioners request that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026

assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by

Petitioners, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioners any refunds attributable to such

reductions, plus allowable interest and costs.

Respectfully submitted

Hertz Schram PC

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Attorney for Petitioners

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

4

← View full record