Petition 2026 - TEG Wyndham Hill (Embassy) Grand Rapids.pdf

Teg Wyndham Hill LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Rapids Respondent · 26-000956-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.

26-0014 

75544160.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

TEG Wyndham Hill LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Grand Rapids,

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. ________ 

Parcel No. 41-14-09-376-012 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

(313) 465-7270 

jcook@honigman.com

Petition 

TEG Wyndham Hill LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says: 

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 365 Route 59, Suite 110, Airmont, NY 

10952. 

2.

The subject real property, parcel number 41-14-09-376-012, is located at 1851 NE 

Knapp Street, Grand Rapids, MI, in Kent County ("Petitioner's Property"). 

3.

Respondent, City of Grand Rapids, assesses and collects property taxes on 

Petitioner's Property. 

4.

In 2026, Respondent’s board of review set the taxable value of Petitioner's Property 

at $6,176,829 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $17,156,100.

2 

75544160.1 

5.

The assessment will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based on 

the tentative equalization factor. 

6.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercial real. 

7.

Petitioner's Property is presently used or available for use for commercial purposes. 

8.

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for 

commercial purposes. 

9.

To the undersigned’s best knowledge, Petitioner’s Property – commercial 

multifamily housing – is not subject to governmental regulatory agreements and a subsidy. 

10.

This matter involves issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable 

value, and (d) uniformity. 

11.

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, there is a dispute 

relative to the value of a loss. 

12.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 

13.

The 2026 assessment – including the state equalized and taxable values – imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, the taxes to be levied and collected on Petitioner’s Property, and the mode 

of assessment adopted by Respondent are invalid, unlawful, and operate as a fraud on Petitioner, 

because they 

(a) 

Exceed amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(b) 

Are calculated at or derived from higher percentages of true cash value than 

permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

3 

75544160.1 

(c) 

Are based on the application of wrong principles and an erroneous 

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that 

is taxable under Michigan law, if any; and 

(d) 

Discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 

2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $6,176,829 to $6,000,000; (ii) reducing the 2026 

assessed and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $17,156,100 to $6,000,000; (iii) 

requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and 

costs; and (iv) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is entitled. 

Dated: May 14, 2026

Respectfully submitted, 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By:

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

(313) 465-7270 

jcook@honigman.com

← View full record