Legends Grove Petition.pdf

Legends At The Grove LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Pittsfield, Respondent · 25-002561-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.

25-0029

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Legends at the Grove LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

Pittsfield Twp.,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. ________

Parcel No. L-12-14-300-019

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781)

Honigman LLP

Attorneys for Petitioner

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151

(313) 465-7420

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition

Legends at the Grove LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says:

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 6400 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2500, Bloomfield

Hills, MI 48301-1728.

2.

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on the property

identified by tax parcel number L-12-14-300-019 ("Petitioner's Property"), known as Legends

Grove.

The Respondent’s records identify Petitioner’s Property as being on Freedom Drive.

Petitioner’s Property is located in Pittsfield Twp., Washtenaw County, Michigan.

3.

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number

L-12-14-300-019 ("Petitioner's Property"), which has a property known as Legends Grove. The

2

Respondent’s records identify Petiitoner’s Property as being on Freedom Drive.

Petitioner’s

Property is located in Pittsfield Twp., located in Washtenaw County, Michigan.

4.

Respondent, Pittsfield Twp., assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's

Property.

5.

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be

$26,008,277 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $26,104,255, which has resulted in a state

equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor.

6.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercial improved.

On the subject

December 31, 2024 tax day, Petitioner’s commercial property was still under construction.

Petitioner's Property has been designed to be used for commercial purposes.

To the best

knowledge of the undersigned, the multifamily units comprising Petitioner’s Property are not

subject to a governmental regulatory agreement or a subsidy.

7.

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

value, (d) due process, (e) uniformity and (f) equal protection.

8.

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

9.

Only after June 2, 2025, did Petitioner learn of the 2025 assessment of Petitioner’s

Property.

10.

This year, the true cash value of Petitioner’s Property increased by approximately

$40 million. Had Petitioner received the assessment notice and been made aware of this enormous

increase, Petitioner would have appealed the assessment prior to June of this year.

11.

Under the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the

United States, the Michigan Constitution, and precedent that includes and is not limited to

Parkview Mem Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990) and Michigan

3

State University v City of Lansing, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued

February 15, 2005 (Docket No. 250813), the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this case.

12.

In Michigan State University v City of Lansing, unpublished opinion per curiam of

the Court of Appeals, issued February 15, 2005 (Docket No. 250813), the taxpayer was entitled to

pursue its Tribunal appeal where it filed its Tribunal Petition within thirty-five days of receiving

its summer tax bill in July because that was the first notice it received of the assessment. Here,

Petitioner also is filing this Petition within thirty-five days of receiving notice of the assessment

and therefore Petitioner is entitled to pursue this appeal.

13.

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful

for the reasons that:

(a)

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value,

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable

statutes;

(b)

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at

a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan

Constitution and applicable statutes;

(c)

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, is

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion

of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is based

upon the application of wrong principles; and

(d)

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against

4

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

2025 assessed value and state equalized value from $26,104,255 to $15,500,000; (ii) reducting the

2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $26,008,277 to $15,500,000; (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: June 27, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

HONIGMAN LLP

Attorneys for Petitioner

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781)

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151

(313) 465-7420

slmandell@honigman.com

← View full record