2026 ANSWER Plaza v Trenton MTT 26-000726 Answer Exhibits.pdf

Samuel Plaza Petitioner V City Of Trenton Respondent · 26-000726-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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-000726 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

Unit of Government 

City of Trenton 

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

2800 Third Street 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Trenton 

Mi 

48183 

Telephone Number: 

(734) 675-6810 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

I 

First Name: 

Mm. 

Last Name: 

Anthony 

J. 

Bologna (P72698) 

Firm Name (if any): 

Legal Consulting, PLLC 

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

31000 Telegraph Road, Suite 102 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Bingham Farms 

Mi 

48025 

Telephone Number: 

(248) 800-6240 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

ab@consultingpllc.com 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attacha 

separate sheet if necessary. 

[Jes 

[1 No 

[®] NotApplicable 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more for all tax years at issue? 

[eo] Yes 

O 

No

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

See Attachment A (Respondent's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Statement of Contentions), incorporated by reference. 

Summary: Respondent denies that the subject property is over-assessed. The March 2026 Board of Review (Petition No. M26-032, 

decision dated April 15, 2026) already reduced the 2026 assessed value from $307,800 to $295,000 (TCV $590,000), below the 

assessor's cost-approach estimate of true cash value of $615,534. The property (1701 Arthurs Court) is a 1,706 sq. ft. brick ranch 

built in 2024 on a 0.23-acre lot with a 962 sq. ft. finished basement (kitchenette, egress bedroom, home theater), 541 sq. ft. attached 

brick garage, two fireplaces, two covered porches, and additional plumbing fixtures. Petitioner has produced no appraisal, market 

data, or comparable sales; his owner's estimate was $480,000 at the Board of Review and is $505,000 in the Petition. Petitioner's 

asserted basis for relief (that the home was custom built to accommodate a medical condition and live-in medical help) is not a 

legally cognizable basis for reducing true cash value. MCL 211.27(1). Tax year 2025 was never protested at a Board of Review and 

no petition was filed by July 31, 2025; 

it is not properly before the Tribunal and must be dismissed. MCL 205.735a(3), (6). 

Respondent reserves the right to contend for the assessor's cost-supported TCV of $615,534 (AV $307,800). Exhibits 1-2 attached. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [#] Yes 

|] No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [] March 

O 

July 

O December 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? Od Yes 

[a] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [| Yes 

[e] No 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

Od Yes 

[9] No 

If so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE 

When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? 

Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? 

Not applicable - taxable value was not uncapped (2026 TV of $281,410 is a capped value under MCL 211 .27a(2)). 

Section 6: Valuation Information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Number: 

82 54 005 11 0002 000 

Classification of Property: 

Real] 

Personal [J (check one) 

Agricultural 

J 

Commercial 

J 

Industrial 

J 

Residential 

© 

 Timber-Cutover [J 

Developmental [J 

Utility (J (check one) 

Assessed Value (also known as State Saualized Value) established 

| Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: 

by the Board of Review: 

$295,000 

$281,410 

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as true cash value)? 

$590,000 

What do you believe is the assessed value? (multiply true cash 

What do you believe is the taxable value? (cannot exceed 

value by .5) $295,000 

assessed value) $281,410 

Signature 

*Required 

Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: Anthony J. Bologna 

( P72698) 

Isl 

Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

SAMUEL PLAZA, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000726 

CITY OF TRENTON, 

Tribunal Judge Presiding 

Respondent. 

ATTACHMENT A TO RESPONDENT CITY OF TRENTON’S ANSWER: 

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS 

Respondent CITY OF TRENTON, by and through its attorney, Anthony J. Bologna of Legal 

Consulting, PLLC, submits the following Answer to the Petition, together with its affirmative 

defenses and its statement of contentions of value, and states: 

I. RESPONSE TO THE PETITION 

1. 

Respondent ADMITS that it is the City of Trenton, Wayne County, Michigan, the local 

assessing unit responsible for assessing the subject property. 

2. 

Respondent ADMITS that the subject property is a single parcel commonly known as 1701 

Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan 48183, Parcel No. 82 54 005 11 0002 000, legally described as 

Lot 2, Vernon Park Subdivision, T4S R10E, L 122 P 77-78, WCR. 

3 

Respondent ADMITS that the subject property is classified 401 Residential and carries a 

100% Principal Residence Exemption effective May 23, 2024. 

4. 

Respondent ADMITS that Samuel J. Plaza and Christina L. Plaza are the owners of record. 

Respondent NOTES that Christina L. Plaza, a co-owner of record, is not named as a petitioner, 

and leaves Petitioner to his proofs as to standing to appeal on her behalf. 

5: 

Respondent ADMITS that Petitioner protested the 2026 assessment before the March 2026 

Board of Review (Petition No. M26-032) and that, by decision dated April 15, 2026, the Board of 

Review reduced the 2026 assessed value from $307,800 to $295,000 and left the 2026 taxable 

value at $281,410. 

6. 

Respondent DENIES that Petitioner protested the 2025 assessment before any Board of 

Review, and DENIES that tax year 2025 is properly before the Tribunal. See Affirmative Defense 

No. 1, below.

7. 

Respondent DENIES that the City has over-assessed the subject property. To the contrary, 

the March 2026 Board of Review reduced the assessment below the assessor’s cost-approach 

estimate of true cash value. 

8. 

Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES the allegation that "a licensed appraiser 

has given value as well as a licensed Realtor," for the reason that no appraisal, valuation disclosure, 

market analysis, comparable sales data, or other supporting documentation was submitted with the 

Petition, and Respondent is therefore without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegation. Strict proof is demanded. 

9. 

Respondent DENIES 

that the true cash value 

of the subject property on Tax Day 

(December 31, 2025) was $505,000, and DENIES that the assessed value should be $252,500 or 

that the taxable value should be $252,500. 

10. 

Respondent AFFIRMATIVELY STATES that Petitioner’s own Petition to the Board of 

Review, dated March 12, 2026, asserted an owner’s estimate of true cash value of $480,000, while 

the Petition filed with this Tribunal 

asserts $505,000. Petitioner’s contentions 

of value 

are 

internally inconsistent and unsupported by any documentary evidence. 

11. 

Respondent DENIES each and every remaining allegation of the Petition not expressly 

admitted herein, and demands strict proof thereof. 

II. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS OF VALUE 

12. 

Respondent contends that the following values are correct for the 2026 tax year and should 

be affirmed: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value / SEV 

[Taxable Value 

2026 

$590,000 

$295,000 

$281,410 

13. 

The subject property is a single-family residence of Class BC construction, built in 2024. 

It comprises 1,706 square feet of above-grade brick living area on a full basement; a 962 square 

foot finished basement recreation area including a kitchenette, an egress bedroom, and a home 

theater; a below-grade outside entrance; a 541 square foot attached brick garage; two prefabricated 

fireplaces; covered concrete porches of 132 and 118 square feet; two additional two-fixture baths 

and two separate showers; and 140 square feet of wood-frame/concrete land improvements. The 

site consists of 0.23 acres with approximately 72 feet of frontage. 

14. 

The assessor developed a cost-less-depreciation estimate of value of $495,431 total base 

new, $470,655 depreciated, adjusted by the neighborhood economic condition factor of 1.140 for 

ECF Neighborhood 40006 (Anderson), yielding a building true cash value of $536,547. Together 

with land of $72,860 and land improvements of $6,127, the assessor’s 2026 estimate of true cash 

value is $615,534, or $360.81 per square foot of total floor area.

15. 

On Petitioner’s protest, the March 2026 Board of Review reduced the 2026 assessed value 

to $295,000, which corresponds to a true cash value of $590,000 — a reduction of $25,534 below 

the assessor’s cost-supported estimate. Petitioner has therefore already received relief. 

16. 

The only sale of the subject in the record is the October 12, 2023 purchase of the vacant 

lot from Vernon Park, LLC for $75,000, prior to construction. That transaction is not probative of 

the true cash value of the completed, improved property on Tax Day 2026. 

17. 

The 2026 taxable value of $281,410 is a capped value computed by operation of law under 

MCL 211.27a(2), based on the 2025 taxable value of $274,012 multiplied by the applicable 

inflation rate multiplier, adjusted for additions and losses. It is less than the assessed value and is 

therefore controlling. Taxable value 

is not independently reducible except to the extent the 

Tribunal determines a state equalized value below the capped value. 

III. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SPECIAL MATTERS 

1. 

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2025. 

The Petition lists "2025, 2026" as the years under appeal. For residential real property, the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction in an assessment dispute is invoked only by the filing of a petition 

on or before July 31 of the tax year involved, and only where the assessment was first 

protested before the Board of Review. MCL 205.735a(3), (6). Petitioner did not protest the 

2025 assessment before the 2025 March Board of Review, and did not file any petition 

with the Tribunal on or before July 31, 2025. The Board of Review decision and Form 618 

petition attached to the Petition are captioned for the 2026 year of appeal only. A prior tax 

year is not a "subsequent tax year" that may be added under TTR 273 (R 792.10273). Tax 

year 2025 must be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the 2025 assessed 

value of $284,300 and taxable value of $274,012 are final. 

2. 

The assessment is presumed valid and Petitioner bears the burden of proof. 

Petitioner bears the burden of establishing the true cash value of the property by 

a 

preponderance of the evidence. MCL 205.737(3). The Tribunal must make an independent 

determination of true cash value, and may not simply adopt a party’s figure; but where a 

petitioner fails to carry its burden, the Tribunal may affirm the assessment as determined 

by the Board of Review. Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich 

App 379, 389-390 (1998); President Inn Props, LLC v City of Grand Rapids, 291 Mich 

App 625, 631 (2011). Petitioner has offered no appraisal, no valuation disclosure, no 

comparable sales, and no market data of any kind. 

3s 

Petitioner’s stated basis for relief is not legally cognizable. 

Petitioner’s protest to the Board of Review stated that the home "was a new build due to 

my medical condition. I suffer from Parkinson’s. The house was built to accommodate my 

condition, plus accommodate live-in medical help." True cash value means the usual 

selling price — the price that could be obtained at arm’s length between a willing buyer

5; 

and a willing seller. MCL 211.27(1); Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of 

Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485 (1991). The owner’s personal circumstances, subjective 

motivation for building, medical condition, or intended use of the improvements are not 

measures of market value and do not reduce true cash value. To the extent Petitioner intends 

to claim functional obsolescence or superadequacy arising from custom features, that claim 

must be quantified by market evidence, which Petitioner has not supplied. 

Valuation is determined as of Tax Day. 

True cash value is determined as of December 31 immediately preceding the tax year at 

issue — here, December 31, 2025 for the 2026 tax year. MCL 211.2(2). Any opinion of 

value as of a later date, including any 2026 broker price opinion or listing analysis, is not 

probative of value on Tax Day. 

Cost approach is an accepted method of valuation for recently constructed, custom 

improvements. 

The three traditional approaches to value are the cost-less-depreciation approach, the sales- 

comparison approach, and the capitalization-of-income approach. Jones & Laughlin Steel 

Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348, 353 (1992). Where, as here, the improvements 

were newly constructed 

in 2024 and are custom 

in nature, the cost-less-depreciation 

approach as adjusted by 

a locally derived economic condition factor is a reliable and 

appropriate indicator of true cash value, and is consistent with the State Tax Commission 

Assessor’s Manual. 

Petitioner is in default. 

By Order of Default entered June 24, 2026, the Tribunal held Petitioner in default for 

failure to submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, as required by TTR 279 (R 

792.10279), and ordered Petitioner to cure the default within 14 days. Respondent reserves 

the right to move for dismissal in the event the default is not properly and timely cured. 

Reservation as to evidence and valuation disclosure. 

Respondent objects to, and reserves all objections to, the admission of any appraisal, 

comparative market analysis, broker price opinion, or other valuation evidence that is not 

filed with the Tribunal and served on Respondent at least 21 days before the scheduled 

hearing, as required by TTR 289 (R 792.10289). 

Reservation of the higher, cost-supported value. 

While Respondent presently contends for the values as adjusted by the March 2026 Board 

of Review, the Tribunal is obligated to make an independent determination of true cash 

value. MCL 205.737(1). Respondent reserves the right to present evidence supporting a 

true cash value of up to $615,534 (assessed value $307,800) as reflected on the assessor’s 

2026 property record card, and to request that the Tribunal so find.

10. 

Constitutional and statutory ceiling. 

The assessment of $295,000 does not exceed 50% of the property’s true cash value and 

therefore complies with Const 1963, art 9, § 3 and MCL 211.27a. 

Reservation of additional defenses. 

Respondent reserves the right to amend this Answer and to assert such further affirmative 

defenses as may become known through the exchange of evidence, hearing, or further 

investigation, and to file such motions as may be appropriate, including a motion for 

summary disposition or a motion to dismiss. 

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Trenton respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: 

a. 

b. 

DISMISS tax year 2025 from this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; 

AFFIRM the 2026 true cash value of $590,000, assessed value / state equalized value of 

$295,000, and taxable value of $281,410, as established by the March 2026 Board of 

Review; 

DENY Petitioner’s requested reduction in true cash value, assessed value, and taxable 

value; 

In the alternative, DETERMINE the 2026 true cash value of the subject property in an 

amount up to $615,534, with a corresponding assessed value of $307,800, as supported by 

the assessor’s cost-less-depreciation analysis; and 

GRANT such other and further relief as the Tribunal deems just and equitable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LEGAL CONSULTING, PLLC 

By: /s/ Anthony J. Bologna 

Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) 

Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton 

31000 Telegraph Road, Suite 102 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

(248) 800-6240 

ab@consultingplle.com 

Dated: July 13, 2026

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

SAMUEL PLAZA, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

¥ 

MTT Docket No. 26-000726 

CITY OF TRENTON, 

Respondent. 

/ 

RESPONDENT CITY OF TRENTON’S EXHIBITS 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS ANSWER TO PETITION 

Respondent City of Trenton, by and through its attorney, Anthony J. Bologna of Legal 

Consulting, PLLC, submits the following exhibits in support of its Answer to the Petition filed 

in the above-captioned matter. The exhibits are Bates-numbered RESP-0001 through 

RESP-0007. 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 

Description 

Bates Range 

1 

2026 Property Record Card and Valuation Report, Parcel No. 82 54 005 11 | RESP-0001 — 

0002 000, 1701 Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan (City of Trenton 

RESP-0005 

Assessing Department) 

2 

2026 Board of Review Decision, Petition No. M26-032, dated April 15, 

RESP-0006 — 

2026, with Petitioner’s Petition to Board of Review (Form 618 / L-4035), 

| RESP-0007 

dated March 12, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

LEGAL CONSULTING, PLLC 

By: /s/ Anthony J. Bologna 

Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) 

Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton 

31000 Telegraph Road, Suite 102 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

(248) 800-6240 

| ab@consultingpllc.com 

Dated: July 

, 2026

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

Samuel Plaza v City of Trenton 

| MTT Docket No. 26-000726 

RESPONDENT'S 

EXHIBIT 1 

2026 Property Record Card and Valuation Report 

Parcel No. 82 54 005 11 0002 000 

1701 Arthurs Court, Trenton, Michigan 48183 

City of Trenton Assessing Department

1000-dS3Y 

xxxP323URIEND 

3J0U ING STYERTTSI PIWSSP UTSIBY UOTIBWIOIUT 

xxx 

01986 

00Z'TT 

0 

.002°1T 

£202 

S00£‘CT 

V00E‘ET 

00€’ET 

0 

loog’eT 

“oh NEY TEO¥YA $202/62/0T €10 

Y20Z mramy aNvT $202/€2/50 IO 

10210'v 

LT 

100€ ‘982 

008°672 

100s ‘vg 

"6002 

— 

uebTYO 

TH 

‘suheym 

‘uojusil 

Jo A3TD 

05 PasusodTT 

(0) 

3ybtakdoy 

-zozTTenbm 

ayy 

J0 A3uno) 

666T 

Gz0z|¥ JO Q¥V0OE 920Z/8T/£0 Tr 

10017 182 

W000 S62 

L008 L0¢ 

00% '1LZ 

007 ’9¢ 

9z0z, 

eum 

usyp 

ou 

CLIN 

I2430 

aTqexe 

/Teunqry 

imaTA®Y 

IL, 

|30 paeog 

anTep 

passessy 

ante 

butprrng 

{oRTEA 

puet 

zeex| 

uTerd poota 

| 

| 

pueriapm 

sutaey 

juoxyisjem 

| 

puog 

papooyM 

duremg 

| 

padeospueT 

uybTH 

MOT 

burtTod 

i 

T9A9T| 

X 

23TS 

70 Aydeabodog, 

*STTIN 

punoxbrspupn 

| 

$9T3TTTIN PIepuels 

‘000 6T00 

TT 

S00 

7S 

OL 

000 

T000 

TIT 

S00 

¥S WO¥d 

: (S)TAIIYd 

aTIIHD 

‘000 

S000 

66 

S00 

PS 

:(S)TEOUYA 

INZF¥Yd 

‘dELCYWA L00Z/02/ZT 

NO 

“€dWOD/LITdS 

Q3FHS 

3 

‘SEHOYOd 

‘SHEOYIAEIIA 

‘SWOOYHIVE 

‘WOOY¥ HNIAIT ¥IIVIHL AIAOW 

ANY SSHYOF HIIM WOOYAdd 

HLLINIHOLIIM HIIM 

| 

s3YPTT 

329138] 

X 

| INIWIASYE NOIIVIYOAW 

‘HOVYVO AIHOVILY HIIM 

| 

| 

qIndi 

x 

dSNOH 

ALS 

T NOILOAYISNOD 

MAN ddA¥ 

- 

$202 

seo 

x 

ANTYA LENYYW 

| 

| 

OTI309THE| 

X 

OL JILOIVHOD ANTVA JASSASSY 

¥MOIW 9202 

| Lzt'e 

= enTeA yse) anil sjusweroxdwl pueT Ps3lBWIISH TRIOL 

I8MeS| 

X 

PR 

LTT’ 

S6 

0pT 

LO" 9¥ 

*DoU0D/3WeIi PooM 

z07eM| 

X 

T3ur/s3 

Jo] 

snTep 

ysed 

poo 

g 

8zTS 

a3ey 

uot3dTaossq 

{TeMapTS| 

X 

s8jewTlsy 3s0) juswasoxdwl pueT 

\ 

| 

Tomes WIS) 

X 

PST6L 

= 

M WOM 8.-LL 

d 

ZZT 

T 

®OTH 

Male 

X | SPI NOISIAIQHAS ¥vd NONYEA 

Z TOT 

xZAELx 

0982L 

= enTeA pueT 

‘3sE TeIOL 

S910 Te30L £2°0 

‘399d UOT 

TEN3IOY 

ZL 

| 

BES dang 

Uotadraoseg Xeq 

098°2L 

00T 

920T 

0000°T 

0000°T 

€0°€¥T 

TO"TL 

QIYANYLS 

L 

4 

sntea 

uoseay 

‘[pyy 

o3ey 

yadeg 

3uoxd 

vyidsg 

ebeiuoxg 

uotadraosaq 

| 

sjusweaoxdur 

{ 

x 

SI0308d 

4 

2; 

oTTqnd 

6-G 

d 

NOSMEANY 

9000F% "9000% 

STQel PUPT 

IO] 

S9]1PWTISH 

SNTRA pueT 

juedep 

| 

pasoxdur 

£87187 

IW NOILNIJL 

® 

= 

isin 

“LD SYNHI¥Y 

TOLT 

» 

» 

. 

. 

i 

LETAW0D 

Ҥ 

¥1200-%22d| 

$202/ST/LO 

; 

ONINOZ T18°09€ :¥dL/ADL §ES'GT9 ADL IST 9202 

“7 YNIZSTHHD 

5 

‘0 THOWYS 'vZwid 

LATINO] 

Ҥ 

TEE00-bzAd| 

$20Z/ST/LO 

TYOT¥LOTTE 

G00 

4 dvK 

SsaIppY/eueN §,Toun0 

LITIWOD 

°§ 

60T00-Fegdd| 

¥202/9T/L0 

ONTEWNTd 

¥202/€2/S0 

%00T 

"d°¥°d 

LATWOD 

°§ 

GG200-FZWd| 

¥202/91/L0 

TYDINVYHOIN 

STOOHDS 

DITENd NOINFYL 

:TOOYSS 

LO SYNHI¥Y TOLT 

snie3s 

Isqump| 

@3eq 

(s)3twrsg burprIng 

:BUTUOZ NOMAWI-TYIINIAISHEY 

:SSeTd 

ssaippy Ajxsdoag 

i 

I 

i 

0°00T 

| 

fekcicley] 

25LL925202, 

HIONAT S,WdV-£0 

Vid] 

€202/2T/0T 

000°GL 

LSTYHD 

3 

"[ 

THOWNYS 

‘VYZ¥1d 

OTT 

‘M¥Vd 

NONYHIA 

‘suexg, 

Aa 

sbeg 

3! 

edAg 

°3eq 

801g 

| 

‘judg 

POTITIBA 

I9qTT! 

sTPS 

JO suisl 

*3sur 

aTes 

aTes 

993jueIy 

10jUBID 

ANAYM 

:A3unod 

NOINFML 

40 ALID 

:UOTIDTPSTINL 

000 

2000 

TIT 

S00 

¥S 

28 

:ISqunN T32Ieg 

9202/62/90 

uo pajutag

2000-dsS3d 

«xxPo93URIENS 

30U 

INQ STYRTTSI POWSSP UTSISY UOTIBWIOIUL 

xxx 

: 

Helse iii] 

LPS 9€S 

ADI 

<= OPT'T 

(NOSYEANY 90007) 

IDF 

H 

:usT pajroddnsup 

: 

i 

:s930N 

eA eTo0 

yo1ag 

:AauwTy)d 

Ss9‘0Lp 

TEP S67 

1sTe30g 

iswalr wng dung 

eroding 29oTa 

OT) 

5 

TOL'9 

¥S0°L 

TLT 

LINQ TYNOTITATY 

o1ades Te9 0002) 

OTE 

ToOT TOTTeR 

STbuTuS 3TEY 

SY} 

X 

SWe3T 9990 39ETa-UF-3Fun 

oTades Te9 000T| 

| 

go 

freiplicets 

peus 

| 

aed 

ligt 

258 L 

g 

os tonerdnara 

TIM Tana] 

| (g) 

sz00a InoxTeM|T 

pIESURR| 

| 

drH 

i 

I9Me§ OTTqnd| 

T 

| 

BUTATT 

Teaquedi 

| 

ATED! 

X | 

i 

Zr6'1 

vr0’e 

I 

FARES 

TIAN 

I93eM 

oTTqnd| 

T 

i 

48 

uoTyeRI09Y 

296 ee 

te) 

Zv6 1 

502 

1 

I93eM OTTANd 

= 

as 

T 

Fooy 

(g 

TINIE TIREM 

Zomos/To 

gn 

(1) 

ysTutd Juswesed 

(6) 

SuUesI0§ 

¥ SWI0IS 

| 

996 'p- 

908 'p- 

1 

TTeM 

T 

:TTeM uoumod 

| 

ued 

JUSA| 

I00Td 

©38I10U0D 

sioog 

ot3ed| 

| 

| 

ZeT'6€ 

Z6T'Th 

184 

sop esed 

SA0DTY qnj JTWeIa), 

pooM ps3eaI] 

ssero stqnod| 

| 

(pPeysTuUTFUN) 

YDUI 

Zp 

:uoTIepunog 

XOTxg 

:IOTISIXF 

DE 

:SSETD 

| sutey STL OTWEISD 

suo3s 

Jusuese) 

sabexed | jo01a 

oTTI Aid 

‘5u0p paInog 

opTTS 

"ZT0H, 

6L5'Y 

0281 

8TT 

(Az03s 

1) 

422 

1emoys e3exedesiz 

| 

Jo0TE 

*oU0D 

funy eTqnog 

580° 

IX 

[a 

(Az035 

T) 

add 

| 

HUTS BIIXE 

| 

yses TAUTA 

Bem 

3eTTOL BIIXE 

Juewssed 

(8) 

| 

yses Te1s| 

615°S 

0T8°G 

[4 

FaMOYS; ‘@IEARCOS) 

butqunid ON 

I 

yses poom 

0€T 6 

1196 

Z 

y3jeg 2INIXTI 

¢ 

Je8H I9IBM Feros] 

1070 

:s3isTop 

03 IUBTRH 

BH 

"d's 

0 

:qeTs 

Trews 

MIF 

| 

utquntd 

Tenuel 

‘Isualjos 

C= 

ol 

4 

{ 

5 

] 

| 

shes 

€ST'p 

T 

speI9 MOTSg 

‘eouEIIUY SPTSING 

‘jJusueseg 

o3ny 

‘Iouelos 

| 

4's 

0 

:TMeID 

AYR 

i wd 

od 

i 

119'92 

18082 

296 

wooy 

uoT3IesIOoVY 

} 

yard 

2INIXTI 

2,2 

‘d's 

90LT 

1juswaseg 

obxeT, 

ueR 

i 

sjusulsnlpy/SUOTITPPY I8Y30 | 

yeg 2In3IxTI 

€ 

T 

uoTaeAROXT 

(L) 

SMOPUTM 

(Z) 

621'€9¢ 

€vz z8¢ 

i730] 

| (s)oan3xya obesoav| 

| 

T 

TT 

uoT3eTNSUI 

90L'T 

Juswaseg 

EERE: 

A103 

1 

purquntd 

(61) 

I 

’ 

so) 

-azdsg 

MeN 30D 

°zTs 

uoT3epunod 

I0TI9IXY 

SpiEoas 

T 

TT 

yoT1g 

seaxy burtprIng 

! 

‘oAy| 

X 

| Fue] 

| 

| 

TAUTA/UOUTUTY 

66/00T/00T/00T/S6=P00D 

§ °quoD/uood/ound/Aud 

qv/Aud 

$707300 097d 0 ON) 

buTTTen 

(9) 

Le 

“dS 90LT 

= 

®BRIV I00Td 

AS 

90LT 

= BRIY punoip 

- 

(I 

— 

LAR 

b 

Too) 

3 

3EBSH peoxod 

:we3sAg buries 

(TT) 

UTE 

PIO, 

X 

| 

"¥d| 

TSG 

10TI93XY 

(1) 

pZ0z 31d 

08 STO 

X90I1S 00°T 

ATTwes oThurs 

T 

:HPTE 

"SOY I0J 

"ISH ISOD | 

saInIXTA JO ‘Tend/’oN 

‘19U10 

swooped 

| 

I 

wa3shs A3Tanossg 

o0TAI®S sduy 

1uUayD3 TY 

I00Td PUT 

#3009 

Co 

wnnoeA TeIIUSD 

t 

10074 

3ST 

remy sani 

oiscs wow pms SEMA [seem en 

ou] 

hen 

[ 

0FPT°T 

X 

. 

304 

| 

euneg 

| 

oorUINg POOM 

i 

» 

i 

. 

| 

EE. 

5 

i 

“D°H|{ 

X 

PTTOS 

:s7100(] 

1STT wooy 

t 

_.. 18be3es Juusel 

-aorm 

TEVISEY 

Map sed T2300 

huey uesTo ITS 

ITY Teajus) 

y 

7 

| 

90L’T 

:®aIy I00Td 

: 

& 

t 

010! 

% | Bl 

0 

:I00Td 

'OUOD ON 

ep 

¢ 

:oby toeygy ~~ CDURM PIEPUEAS 

BuTT000/6UTIESH ON| 

LoL 

PEO SHETYTESH 

0 

:eaxy abex01s 

| 

og 

isserd 

SABMOIDTH 

| 

dung 3esH 

$39S0TD JO 9ZTS 

Dl 

| 

0 

:poon 

% 

aT 

usa0 

| 

T00D 

® 

3JeSH PadIod| 

X 

I 

i 

] 

0 

v202 

| 

1pG 

:eaIy 

SeD PajusA-308ITA 

| 

gng- dex TzzZNOEQ 

| 

soeUING 100Td/TTEM 

UTI} 

PIO} 

X 

| 

¥d| 

porepowsy| 31TE 

IA 

0 

:sz00q ‘yo 

1 

240315 poom 

qng Tzznoep 

| 

193e0H °oeds 

uoT31RIO0OSq 

3 WTIAL 

A¥0LS 

00°T 

0 

:sxoo@ 

‘olny 

yjIesy pastey 

WoRISUT 

| 

JeSH 

TTBM OTI}0°THE 

7 

:o7&3s butpTIng 

1¢ 

peyUSTUTd! 

| 

I03eTNDIT) 3BdH 

POOH pa3jusA 

| 

(I00TI-UT) 

JUETPEY 

| 31 poom 

pataued| 

ta 

youl 

gp 

:uoTIEpUNO 

1 

A103 

7 qezyexd) 

{ 

POOH pajussun 

Juetpey 

‘TTe) 

‘9°73 

ze3sera; 

| 

TremAiq 

TTeM 

T 

:TTeM uoumo)! 

K103s 

1 

qe3zeid| 

qaL 30H 

preogaseg OTIFORTH 

ET) 

Query 

Poom| 

X 

0 

‘USA dUO3S 

A035 

7 10TI93XF 

uel JusA 

I93BM 30H PeoI0d 

L 

- 

_—— 

0 

:'usp XoTId| 

| 

£1038 

T I0TI®IXY 

Poised uied 

sjong 

/M ITY padIog 

| 

Fo p—— 

pr 

a 

{ 

¢ 

SpTS 

OMI 

esodstqg abeqren 

| 

er aa 

(42035 

T) 

dDD|8TL 

x5E4E Sees] 

| 

! 

T3ysemys Ta 

| 

£3ond o/m TTY peoiod 

bueyreao Juolalo 

SUCH: HO) 

| 

:AaTtoeded 

100. (£7035 

T) 

dODIZET 

A103 

7 

10TI®IUL 

dog 3000 

| wea3g 

Te0D 

| poon 

| 

hig Sie 

. 

SuIoy 21TH 

| 

$207 

:3TINg TEOX| 

odAresay | A103s 

T I0TILUI 

*moTTY @oueTTddy 

*09TH 

170; 

| 

sen 

X 

he! 

3 

cS 

TTweg 

oTbuts| 

X 

obexes 

(LT) 

| syosa/ssyorod 

(91) 

| 

ssoetdertd 

(ST) 

| 

sut-3111ng 

(ST) 

butToop/butiesy 

(TT) 

| 

(*3juod) 

jooy 

(g) 

odAy ButpTIng 

9202/62/90 

uo ps3uTid 

000 

2000 

TT 

G00 

¥S 

¢8 

:IaqunN 

TeoIed 

1 

JO 

T buTpTINg TRTIUSPTSaY

€000-ds3d 

in 

[re] 

fa 

9202/62/90 

uo pe3uTId 

«xxPo93URIENS 

JOU 

INQ STYETTSI POWSSP UTSISY UOTIPWIOFUI 

xxx 

59 

[rT mmmmm———y 

I 

: 

=H 

00 

in 

| 

BEZEL 

j= 

are 

| 

i 

az 

EX) 

ISHAIS | 

pS 

Beant 

OFT 

FTh 

afielen 

oh 

Eenye 

DEC 

JO EINURY LDLL 

1 BUTPTING TETIUSPTSSY 

‘000 

2000 

TT 

S00 

¥S 

28 

rxoqunN TeDIed

06/29/2026 

Valuation Report 

Trenton 2026 

02:13 

PM 

DB: 

82 

54 

005 

11 

0002 

000 

2026 

Est. 

T.C.V. 

PLAZA, 

SAMUEL 

J. 

& CHRISTINA 

L. 

Property Class: 

401 

1701 ARTHURS 

CT 

Map 

#: 

005 

CITY 

OF TRENTON 

TRENTON, 

MI 

48183 

*13Y2* 

LOT 

2 VERNON 

PARK SUBDIVISION 

T4S 

R10E 

L 

122 

P 

77-78 

WCR 

K 

= 

79.54 

2026 MBOR: 

ASSESSED VALUE CORRECTED 

TO MARKET VALUE 

2025 

- ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION 

1 

STY 

HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, 

RECREATION 

BASEMENT WITH KITCHENETTE BEDROOM WITH EGRESS 

AND MOVIE THEATER LIVING ROOM, 

BATHROOMS, 

FIREPLACES, 

PORCHES, 

& 

SHED 

Land Value Estimates 

for Land Table 

40006.40006 ANDERSON 

P 

5-9 

* 

Factors 

* 

Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate 

%Adj. 

Reason 

Value 

STANDARD 

71.01 

143.03 

1.0000 

1.0000 

1026 

100 

72,860 

72 Actual 

Front 

Feet, 

0.23 

Total 

Acres 

Total 

Est. 

Land Value 

= 

72,860 

Land Improvement 

Cost 

Estimates 

Description 

Rate 

Size 

% 

Good 

Cash Value 

Wood Frame/Conc. 

46.07 

140 

95 

6,127 

Total Estimated Land 

Improvements 

True 

Cash Value 

= 

6,127 

Cost 

Est. 

for 

Res. 

Bldg: 

1 

Single 

Family 

1.00 

STORY 

Cls 

BC 

Blt 

2024 

(11) 

Heating System: 

Forced Heat 

& 

Cool 

Ground Area 

= 

1706 

SF 

Floor Area 

= 1706 

SF. 

Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. 

% Good=95/100/100/100/95 

Building Areas 

Stories 

Exterior 

Foundation 

Size 

Cost 

New 

Depr. 

Cost 

1 

Story 

Brick 

Basement 

1,706 

Total: 

382,243 

363,129 

Other Additions/Adjustments 

Recreation 

Room 

962 

28,081 

26,677 

Basement, 

Outside 

Entrance, 

Below Grade 

1 

4,153 

3,945 

Plumbing 

2 

Fixture Bath 

2 

9,611 

9,130 

Separate 

Shower 

2 

5,810 

5,519 

Porches 

CCP 

(1 

Story) 

132 

5-358 

5,085 

Cccp 

(1 

Story) 

118 

4,820 

4,579 

Garages 

Class: 

BC Exterior: 

Brick Foundation: 

42 

Inch 

(Unfinished) 

Base 

Cost 

541 

41,192 

39,132 

Common Wall: 

1 

Wall 

1 

-4,806 

-4,566 

Water/Sewer 

Public Water 

1 

2,044 

1,942 

Public 

Sewer 

1 

2,044 

1,942 

Fireplaces 

Prefab 

1 

Story 

2 

7,832 

7,440 

Unit-in-Place Cost 

Items 

ADDITIONAL UNIT 

171 

7,054 

6,701 

Totals: 

495,431 

470, 655 

Notes: 

RESP-0004

06/29/2026 

Valuation Report 

02:13 

PM 

DB: 

Trenton 

2026 

Parcel Number: 

82 

54 

005 

11 

0002 

000 

Page: 

2 

ECF 

(40006 ANDERSON) 

1.140 

=> 

TCV: 

536,547 

2026 

Est. 

T.C.V. 

54 

005 

11 

0002 

000 

= 

615,534 

Est. 

TCV/Total 

Floor Area 

= 

360.81, 

Most 

recent 

sale 

10/12/2023 

for 

75,000 

2025 Assessed 

MBOR 

S.E.V. 

Base 

for Cap 

IRM 

284,300 

284,300 

284,300 

274,012 

2.70 

2026 

New 

Eg. 

Adjustment 

Loss 

Additions 

Tax Adjustment 

Losses 

0 

10,700 

0 

0 

7,398 

0 

2026 Assessed 

MBOR 

S.E.V. 

Capped 

->Taxable<- 

PRE/MBT 

307,800 

295,000 

295,000 

281,410 

281,410 

281,410 

RESP-0005

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

Samuel Plaza v City of Trenton 

| MTT Docket No. 26-000726 

RESPONDENT’S 

EXHIBIT 2 

2026 Board of Review Decision 

Petition No. M26-032 

| Issued April 15, 2026 

with Petitioner’s Petition to Board of Review 

(Michigan Dep’t of Treasury Form 618 / L-4035), dated March 12, 2026

2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

FROM 

4/15/2026 

JOANIE L BARNETT 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 

ASSESSOR, CITY OF TRENTON 

(Parcel Code required. Property address & legal description optional) 

2 

rd A 

82 54 005 11 0002 OOO 

’ 

1701 ARTHURS CT 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER, 

OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

*13Y2* LOT 2 VERNON PARK SUBDIVISION TAS RIOE L 122 P 77 

PLAZA, SAMUEL J. & CHRISTINA L. 

“78 WCR K = 79.54 

1701 ARTHURS CT. 

TRENTON MI 48183 

THIS PROPERTY ISCLASSIFIED AS: 

401 

Residential 

Petition # M26-032 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the 

data necessary to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 

82 54 005 11 0002 000 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments: 

ASSESSED VALUE CORRECTED TO MARKET VALUE 

2026 

ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

307,800 

2026 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

295,000 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

2026 

ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

281410 

2026 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

281410 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occurad) 

2026 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG % 

100.0000 

Please feel free to contact the Assessor if you have any questions. 

Assessor's Office (734)675-6810 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review, all further appeals may be made to the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

by obtaining a petition online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib 

Deadlines for Residential Valuation appeals must be filed by July 31, 2026. For Commercial or Industrial Real Property 

or Commercial, Industrial, or Utility Personal Property appeals must be filed by June 1, 2026 (May 31 is a Sunday). 

Property Classification appeals ONLY may be appealed to the State Tax Commission by July 1, 2026. 

State Tax Commission, Classification Appeals, PO.Box 3047], Lansing MI 48909 

Please see the reverse side of this notice for all appeal deadlines. 

RESP-0006

Michigan 

rtiment of Treasury 

518 (Rew. 12 25% 

Petition fo Board of Review 

Petition # 

2-08 

40s 

This form is issued under the authority of PA. 208 of 1 893, as amended, Fifirg is voluntary, however, you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal unless you first protest to 

the Board of Review, excapt when the property is classified as commercial real; industrial rea), or developmental real. You may not appeal property classifications to the State 

Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review, 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT 

Owner's Name (Please Print or Ty 

Petitioner's Name 

{If Other than Owner) 

PLAZA, SAMUEL J. & CHRISTINA L. 

Township or City 

County 

Year of Appeal 

CITY OF TRENTON 

WAYNE 

2026 

The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification andlor the qualified agricultural 

property exemption of the following described property: 

Parcel Number 

Property Address 

54.005 11 0002 000 

1701 ARTHURS CT 

Protested Item: J Assessed Value 

[J Taxable Status (exemption) 

[J Tentative Taxable Value 

[J Classification 

[1 Qualifed Agricultural Property Exemption 

1. PROTEST 

OF ASSESSMENT 

Complete this section for a protest of assessed value, including assessed value changes associated with exempt status and denied or late filed personal 

property forms, 

Assessed Value 

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value (Full Market Value} 

eae 

430 ooo” 

2 PROTEST OF TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

Complete this section for a protest of Taxable Valve. 

Reason: 

[] Value of Losses 

[J Value of Additions 

[J Poverty Exemption 

[J Uncapping % 

3, PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION 

Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must mske their decision regarding classification in accordance with Section 211.34¢ of the 

Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal 

residence or qualified agricultural property. 

” 

Classification of property on this year's assessment rolt. 

401 Residential 

Classification Requested: (Please check one of the followin 

[I Agricultural 

[1 Industrial 

[Timber Cutover 

[C1 tility (Personal Property Only) 

[J Commercial 

[I Residential 

[ Developmental 

4. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

a 

es 

If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural property, the 

owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. The Board of Review has no authority to consider or or act upon the exemption from the 18 

School Operating Mills for Homeowner's Principal Residence properites. 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor. (Enter 0 If exemption is denied) 

| Percent qualified agricultural exemplion requested by Owner: (Enter 100 if full 

exemplion requested) 

REASON FOR PROTEST 

State reason(s) 

for protest of assessed 

value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or taxable status and/or 

classification and/or 

quglified agricultural 

property exemption. 

\Y 

4 

+3 

NEW pdt 

0 

WY MEAT 

vA HE oI NG 

50 roll. TR [Tha nd 

; 1 

0PUINOIATE WN (bl Tiw/ | pL act Oana 

A 78 IN 

LR 

WM ELA 

[CERTIFIGATION 

Signature AJ yl DP) — 

2 / p) 

. 202.6 

(sl) HY- ¢q V/ 

Mailing Address: R) J / ATHY (Wat, 

“fre tWJoW J WH). 

$f i. Pp 

www.michigan.gov/treasury 

RESP-0007

Form 618, Page 2 

CL 

a 

I. 

: 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the petition number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Petition Number M2 _022 

Parcel Number 

54 005 11 0002 000 

1. 

AS 

> 

i 

Li 

Tn 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[] penied 

&X Assessed Value Changed From: 

307,800 

To: RIS 

. owe 

/ 

Record of Vote - Board or three member 

ittee of board 

Chairperson: [{]YEs 

[Jno 

Member: BYES 

[JNO 

Member: BM]YES [vo SB 

Reason for Board Action: 

kere] 

vd us 

A 

cvatsdled 

cb mad AIK 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

at PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may 

be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber Cutover Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed 

on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

2 

3 

; 

: 

i 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

O Denied 

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From: 

281,410 

To: 

(See attached L-4035A) 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson: [JYEs 

[JNO_____ 

Member: 

[JYES 

[JNO 

Initials 

Initials 

Member: [(]YES 

[NO 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action: 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

at PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may 

be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber Cutover Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be 

filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtri 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

~~ 

5 

: 

. 

: 

shail 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

Od Denied 

O 

Classification Changed From: 

401 

To, 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson: [] YES 

[JNO 

Member: 

[J] YES 

[JNO 

Member: [JYes 

[] no 

Initials 

Initials 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action: 

PO Box 30471, Lansing MI 48909 by June 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commissi 

4. 

R 

Disposition by Board of Review. 

The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[1 Exemption Request Denied 

[C] 

Exemption percent modified from 

% To: 

% 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

. 

Chairperson: [JYES 

[Jno 

Member: 

[] YES 

[7] NO 

Reason for Board Action: 

Member: [] YEs 

[J NO 

initials 

Tnitals. 

Initials 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding qualified agricultural property exemption, you may appeal that decision by fling a pstition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at PO Box 

30232, Lansing MI 48909 by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at 

‘www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

Board of Review Secretary 

Signature 

Date 

. 

Ni fp ene fF 

03/)&/202¢6 

v

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

SAMUEL PLAZA, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

\ 

MTT Docket No. 26-000726 

CITY OF TRENTON, 

Tribunal Judge Presiding 

Respondent. 

/ 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on the date set forth below, a copy of Respondent City of Trenton’s 

Answer to Petition (Property Tax Appeal Answer Form — Valuation/Uncapping), together with 

Attachment A and all exhibits thereto, was served upon the following, at the address on file with 

the Tribunal, by first-class mail and by electronic mail: 

Vicki L. Hendrixson 

Real Estate One 

One Heritage Place 

Southgate, Michigan 48195 

jhp9118@msn.com 

Authorized Representative for Petitioner Samuel Plaza 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. 

/s/ Anthony J. Bologna 

Anthony J. Bologna (P72698) 

Legal Consulting, PLLC 

Attorney for Respondent City of Trenton 

Dated: July 13, 2026

← View full record