24-003536 signed.pdf
Lawrence A Shaheen, Petitioner V Township Of Hartland, Respondent · 24-003536-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 GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 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 Lawrence A Shaheen, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Hartland Township, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL Personnel Presiding: Nancy Klukowski, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephone Hearing Held on: September 10, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioners: Lawrence Shaheen Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Amanda Carrigan, Assessor PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 March BOR. The BOR did not change the assessment. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 10, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 10, 2024. Petitioner’s petition included tax years from 1998 through 2024. On September 25, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order of partial dismissal, dismissing all prior years other than 2024, for lack of jurisdiction. On November 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s partial dismissal order. On December 4, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The amount of the state equalized value (SEV) or taxable value (TV) in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 2 of 8 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value (TCV). “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market value.”6 The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of both in arriving at its determination.”8 The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, physical losses to the property, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and physical additions to the property, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 4708-17-100-013 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $264,000 $132,000 $66,000 2025 unknown10 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 5 MCL 211.27(1). 6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 8 Id. at 356. 9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 10 At the hearing, Petitioner was asked to provide contentions of value for tax year 2025 but did not have any to offer.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 3 of 8 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in this case.11 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that Respondent made errors in valuing their property in the past. Petitioner and his wife built a house in 1996 to blueprint specifications, with no alterations, and everything was verified by Respondent’s assessor at the time. In 1998, the building was remeasured, one acre of land was added, and the land was changed to 80% wet; it was originally 100% wet. They appealed. At the BOR, Respondent only discussed the outbuilding, no one told them the record card was changed. Petitioner stated that they had never heard of a record card, only a notice of assessment (L 4400). In 2008, the property was assessed for more than the actual value, so they had an appraisal done and still did not know about the record card. They submitted the appraisal to Respondent, and Respondent adjusted the value. In 2010-2011, the acreage was changed to 11 acres with 80% wet. Petitioner needed a new roof in 2011. Respondent made them pull a permit and then came out in 2012 to remeasure, coming up with three different measurements. Petitioner measured it at 1,672 square feet; Respondent used one of its measurements, 1,871 square feet. When Petitioner opposed that, the assessor came out and measured himself. Respondent used the assessor’s measure of 1,854 square feet until it was changed in 2013. In 2014, Petitioner found out about the property record card and requested the legal description of the property be corrected to 10.05 acres from 11.05 acres. In 2015, the property was still at 80% wet. In 2016, the record card was changed by Respondent to 68% wet, seven acres and three acres of water. Seven acres sells for more than 10 acres, even with the three acres being discounted, and brought Respondent more tax. Petitioner noted that Respondent’s submission on page 1 states that one-tenth of one acre of the subject property is wet. In 2023, the bricks on sand were rated at almost $25,000, the land value was corrected, and the seven acres with three wet acres was changed to 10 acres. A square footage correction was done then as well. They question the math of $137 for those three things. Petitioner stated that the record card was not corrected as of 2024, it was still 1,854 square feet. They were told it had been corrected and question why it was not. In 2024, Petitioner’s home was compared to homes with an average of 357 square feet more to come up with a value. Respondent provided Petitioner with information showing this comparison with 20 homes. All but one exceeded their home’s square footage. In 2025, Petitioner’s home was compared to 13 homes. The average of the compared homes was 714 square feet larger than their home; one was 2,352 square feet larger than their home. 11 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 4 of 8 In 2023, they were given an acreage parcel value sales study showing how acreage value by actual parcels sold. Now, it appears to be based on homes sold with the value of the land based on estimated values. Petitioner asserts that the rules seem to change each year to fit the narrative that suits Respondent. They want their property to be assessed fairly, a land value based on parcel value of homes more comparable to theirs, and a TV based on non-inflated numbers. Petitioner wants to know whether the Notice of Assessment is a legal document; whether changes to a record card influence the Notice, and if so, how and when; if there are no physical changes to property, whether it is common practice to alter the record card; what is their recourse if Respondent broke the rules; whether it is legal to alter land value estimates or land tables with a land description on the same page; and whether bricks on sand are taxable. They asserted that they are going to remove the bricks if they are taxable, because they already paid sales taxes and state and federal wage taxes for delivery of the bricks, and they should not have to pay property tax for the rest of their lives. Petitioner stated that they took out a walkway 10 years ago because Respondent called it a patio after they made it wider, but it is still on the record card because they would not allow Respondent to come out. Petitioner believes that the property should be assessed with homes 600-700 square feet smaller than their home. On rebuttal, Petitioner stated that the actual TV is weighted by the unreliable information and the TV is “way out of line” due to the discrepancies. They said that the information Respondent gave them reflects a huge difference in the basis of the square footage and Respondent estimating the land values. In 2023, there was an actual land value evaluation based on property sold. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax years at issue: Parcel Number: 4708-17-100-013 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $403,200 $201,600 $136,234 2025 $435,200 $217,600 $140,457 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6 and 12 of the docket maintained in this case.12 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the assessment is fair and correct. Respondent’s assessor testified that she became the assessor for Respondent in 2023. The assessor has had long discussions 12 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 5 of 8 with Petitioner about their property and has researched Respondent’s records for the subject property. The records go back to 1999 and records before that are not available. The assessor cannot explain why changes occurred before they worked for Respondent, because there are no records to explain the changes. The assessor testified that Respondent has no statutory authority to change the records historically and has told Petitioner that previously. The assessor has worked with Petitioner to ensure that the assessment record for the property is correct. The square footage and acreage were corrected at the July 2023 BOR. The assessor believes that the square footage and acreage are accurate at this point. Respondent has reduced the bricks-on-sand to approximately $1,600 in TCV. The TV history shows that the TV increased by the inflation rate until it dropped in 2008; the AV fluctuated because of the errors in the square footage and acreage. The assessor acknowledged that the erroneous AV became the TV in 2009 when the market dropped. There is not much Respondent can do to change that at this point. The assessor testified that they submitted a sales comparison analysis for 2024 and 2025, which support the assessed values on the record. The land residuals valuation is used for land values; the assessor opined that this is the “estimated amount” referenced by Petitioner. The Economic Condition Factor (ECF) studies span within reason as to the square footage and compare what properties are selling for versus the value at which Respondent had those properties assessed. There may be larger homes in the ECF study but that is taken care of in the analysis. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 3796 Cullen Road, Hartland Township, in Livingston County. 2. The subject property is classified as residential. 3. Petitioner had a home built on the subject property in 1996. 4. Petitioner did not submit sufficient, competent, and material evidence to meet the burden of going forward. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion support the Tribunal’s determination: Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”13 “This burden encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”14 Although the Tribunal has a duty to 13 MCL 205.737(3). 14 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 6 of 8 make an independent determination of value,15 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with evidence.”16 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”17 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.18 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”19 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.20 “The ‘substantial evidence test’ has been defined as evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. While it consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence.”21 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”22 The “thing to be proven” in this case is the TCV of the property at issue. TCV is defined as “the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.”23 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.24 “Variations of these approaches and entirely new methods may be useful if found to be accurate and reasonably related to the fair-market value of the subject property.”25 15 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 16 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333) citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App 379, 408- 410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998). 17 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . . for the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike the plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward with evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination except that provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to hire its own appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 18 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). 19 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 20 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354-355 and Great Lakes v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App at 408-410. 21 Russo v Dep’t of Licensing & Regul, 119 Mich App 624, 631; 326 NW2d 583, 587 (1982). See also Dow Chem Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 22 Goff v Bil-Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507, 514 n 5; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), overruled on other grounds in Mudel v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed). See also Moore v Prestige Painting, 277 Mich App 437; 745 NW2d 816 (2007). 23 MCL 211.27(1). 24 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 25 Id.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 7 of 8 Although Petitioner provided some evidence in this case, it is not sufficient to meet the burden of going forward. Petitioner’s evidence does not include a valuation disclosure based on the cost, income, or sales comparison approaches. Rather, Petitioner argues in essence that the current assessment should be adjusted downward due to prior errors by Respondent, going back over two decades. It is understandable that Petitioner feels aggrieved by Respondent’s past errors in its property records and assessments. However, under the circumstances presented in this case, the Tribunal does not have authority to change the 2024 and 2025 assessments based on mistakes made in prior years. It is undisputed that Respondent corrected the acreage in 2014 and the square footage in 2023, and therefore, the acreage and square footage of the subject property are accurate for 2024 and 2025, which are the only tax years at issue in this case. Lowering the 2024 and 2025 assessments to account for errors in earlier years would require equitable powers that the Tribunal does not possess. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s evidence is not sufficient, competent, and material evidence to meet the burden of going forward. Therefore, the burden of going forward did not shift to Respondent, and the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered. As such, involuntary dismissal of the case is warranted. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final Decision; b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final Decision; or c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other action as is necessary and appropriate. EXCEPTIONS The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003536 Page 8 of 8 Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service (i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. By Entered: October 16, 2025 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 provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk