24-003606.pdf
Reenlee P Korach, Petitioner V Township Of Iron River, Respondent · 24-003606-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 Reenlee P Korach, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003606 v Case Type: Valuation Iron River Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT ORDER DISMISSING TAX YEAR 2025 Location of Hearing: Crystal Falls, Michigan Hearing Held on: October 29, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Reenlee Korach and Dawn Pisoni Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Heather Casagranda, Assessor SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 004-070-003-00 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $22,750 $11,375 $11,375 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 March BOR lowered the assessed value (AV) and TV from $32,000 to $30,500. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 27, 2024, and an amended petition on January 3, 2025. Petitioner’s amended petition appeals the TCV and TV of Parcel No. 004-070-003-00. Respondent filed an answer on March 5, 2025.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 2 of 8 The amount of the SEV or 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 the 2025 tax year is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its 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, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 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 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 3 of 8 evidence.”11 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or reasoned opinion.”12 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 004-070-003-00 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, 8, and 9 of the docket maintained in this case.13 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the subject property is over assessed and should be reduced to $10,000, the price Petitioner paid to purchase the subject property. At hearing, Petitioner, Reenlee Korach, testified that he purchased the subject property along with an adjoining timber-cutover parcel for $20,000 in October 2023. Mr. Korach contends the property is not worth what Respondent has assessed it for because it has access issues and three-fourths of the parcel consists of wetlands. Mr. Korach also testified that the subject property is surrounded by national forest land. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax years at issue: Parcel Number: 004-070-003-00 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $61,000 $30,500 $30,500 2025 $45,600 $22,800 $22,800 11 See also MCR 2.517(a). 12 Id. 13 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. 24-003606 Page 4 of 8 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 26 through 28 and 31 of the docket maintained in this case.14 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property is properly assessed. At hearing, Respondent’s assessor, Heather Casagranda, testified that the subject property was assessed using the 2024 land sale study. Ms. Casagranda testified that the land study valued the subject property’s 40 acres at $64,000. Ms. Casagranda confirmed the BOR lowered the AV and TV from $32,500 to $30,500. Upon inquiry by the Tribunal, Ms. Casagranda testified that she did not personally inspect the subject property and could not confirm or deny whether the subject property is mainly wetlands. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located off of South Bradley, Iron River Township, Iron County. 2. The subject property is classified as agricultural-vacant. 3. The subject property was listed for sale by UP Riverland Realty, Inc. 4. Petitioner purchased the subject property in an arm’s length transaction. 5. The subject property is approximately 40 acres in size. 6. Respondent filed the 2024 property record card and 2024 land value study as evidence. 7. Respondent did not file the underlying land sales as evidence to support its 2024 land value study.15 8. Respondent did not personally inspect the subject property. 9. Petitioner filed the purchase agreement as evidence. 10. The Buyer’s Affidavit explicitly states, [t]he property described in Schedule A does not have both physical and legal access to a publicly dedicated right of way….”16 11. Neither party filed any valuation evidence for tax year 2025. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 14 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. 15 See Tax Docket Lookup, line #28, Respondent’s land value study. 16 Tax Docket Lookup, line #9, Petitioner’s Buyer’s Affidavit, page 20.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 5 of 8 A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.17 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.18 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”19 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.20 With the exception of evidence that was excluded, as indicated above, all evidence submitted by both parties was considered in reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this section of the Opinion and Judgment, the presiding judge has determined that this evidence shall be given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in reaching a decision in this case is discussed below. Highest and Best Use Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as agricultural. Cost Approach The cost approach “is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.”21 Further, it is more useful when “a lack of market activity limits the usefulness of the sales comparison approach” and it is “especially persuasive when land value is well supported and the improvements are new or suffer only minor depreciation . . . .”22 The Tribunal finds the cost approach is not relevant to this case because there were no improvements on the property for the tax years at issue. Income Approach “In the income capitalization approach, the present value of the anticipated future benefits of property ownership is measured. . . . In direct capitalization, the relationship between one year’s income and value is reflected in either a capitalization rate or an 17 MCL 205.735a(2). 18 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 19 Antisdale at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 20 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 21 Appraisal Institute: The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago, Appraisal Institute, 15th ed, 2020), at 36. 22 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 530.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 6 of 8 income multiplier.”23 Neither party provided evidence to support an income approach and therefore the Tribunal finds the income approach is not relevant to this case. Sales Comparison Approach “The sales comparison approach is most useful when a number of similar properties have recently been sold or are currently for sale in the subject property’s market.”24 Tax Year 2024 Petitioner contends the subject property is worth $10,000 or $250 per acre, which is what he paid to purchase the vacant property. Respondent contends the subject property is worth $61,000 or $1,525 per acre. Petitioner provided no valuation evidence in support of his contention of value and relies solely on the price he paid to purchase the subject property. The Tribunal notes that Petitioner’s October 2023 purchase is close in time to the relevant December 31, 2023 tax day for tax year 2024. Further, the Tribunal finds Mr. Korach’s testimony concerning the subject property’s access issues and wetlands credible and supportive of a sales price lower than a similar 40-acre parcel with no access or wetland issues. Although Respondent filed its 2024 land sale study results in support of its contention of value, Respondent did not provide the underlying sales data to support its final acreage values and admittedly did not inspect the subject property to determine what, if anything, caused the property to sell for less than what other properties are selling for in the general vicinity. Without the underlying sales data or testimony concerning the current state of the subject property as of the 2024 tax day, the Tribunal finds Respondent’s evidence less credible than Petitioner’s evidence and testimony. After reviewing the limited evidence, testimony, and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds Petitioner’s evidence more credible than Respondent’s. Based on Mr. Korach’s testimony that three-fourths of the subject property is wetlands, the Tribunal calculates the TCV utilizing Petitioner’s $250/acre for the 30 acres of wetlands and Respondent’s $1,525/acre for the remaining 10 acres of non-wetlands: 30 acres x $250/acre = $ 7,500 10 acres x $1,525/acre = $15,250 Total TCV = $22,750 Tax Year 2025 Petitioner did not submit any valuation evidence in support of his contention of value for the 2025 tax year. Although Petitioner contends the subject property should be valued 23 Id. 24 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 36.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 7 of 8 for what Petitioner paid to purchase the property, that argument is not supported for 2025 tax year because it is too far removed from the December 31, 2024 tax day. Further, more than a year has passed since Petitioner purchased the property and no market adjustments or sales comparables were presented for the Tribunal to consider. 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 2025 tax year is warranted. JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that the property’s SEV and TV for the tax year(s) at issue shall be as set forth in the Summary of Judgment section of this Final Opinion and Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax year(s) at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s TCV and TV within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.25 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 25 See MCL 205.755.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003606 Page 8 of 8 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%. This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By _______________________________________ Entered: December 2, 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