24-003393 Dismiss BOP signed.pdf

John Hanley, Petitioner V Township Of Leelanau, Respondent · 24-003393-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 

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 

 

John Hanley, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

 

Leelanau Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Nancy Klukowski, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

August 5, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

John Hanley 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Barry Wauldron, Assessor 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR) and did so to the 2024 March BOR. The BOR did not change the 

assessment. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 30, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 10, 2024. 

 

On April 23, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for failing 

to appear at an April 22, 2025 hearing. Respondent subsequently cured its default. On 

May 19, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order setting aside Respondent’s default. 

 

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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 2 of 8 

 

a) 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 

 

b) 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 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 042-150-001-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$975,000

$487,500

$487,500

2025

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

 

 

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.

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 3 of 8 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 10 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 the assessment of the subject property is too high. Petitioner testified that his tax 

rate penalizes him for building a new home. It is his understanding that property 

assessments should have uniformity under Michigan law, but he does not see uniformity 

here. Petitioner contends that new construction is being taxed at a significantly higher 

rate than other homes. He stated that his assessed value since building the home is up 

over 80% and his taxes have gone up by almost 10%. Petitioner indicated that his 

home has a taxable value $111,000 higher than the house adjacent, but that home is 

much larger than his. Petitioner also cited a home that sold for $970,000 last year but 

Respondent says Petitioner’s home is worth $1.3 million; thus, there is nothing to 

substantiate that value. He indicated that the taxable value of the home that sold for 

$970,000 has not changed from $270,000. 

 

Petitioner said that Respondent’s board chair told him that his home is valued higher 

due to the finishes and other homes are worth less due to depreciation. Petitioner 

questions why his neighbors are not paying higher taxes while receiving the same 

services. He feels that the taxable values should be fair, but they are not. 

 

On rebuttal, Petitioner asserted that the garage on his property has been there since 

construction was finished in 2023, so the assessor “screwed up” by not including it back 

then. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax years at issue: 

 

Parcel Number: 042-150-001-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$1,356,800

$678,400

$535,920

2025

$1,847,200

$923,600

$552,533

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 5 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 subject property is correctly assessed. Mr. Wauldron testified that he took over 

as Respondent’s assessor in April and he has taken a close look at the records for this 

property. He also met with Petitioner and explained the increases in the assessment. 

Mr. Wauldron testified that the land value was unchanged from 2024 to 2025. Building 

 

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. 

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.

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 4 of 8 

 

was the reason for the higher value. The new construction was done incrementally from 

2023 through 2025, so the values increased accordingly. 

 

Mr. Wauldron explained that new construction is not taxed higher; rather, it is valued 

higher because construction costs are higher than they have been in the past. 

Construction costs are updated annually in the assessment software. Homes are 

valued at the cost to build new, less depreciation, which is why Petitioner’s value is 

high. Mr. Wauldron noted that construction costs are higher than they’ve ever been. 

The property will depreciate as time goes by. However, values will continue to increase 

because the market is going up faster than the inflation rate. 

 

Mr. Wauldron also noted that Petitioner’s taxable values for 2024 and 2025 increased 

only at the rate of the inflation rate multiplier. 

 

Mr. Wauldron also indicated that there was an issue with the land values in the 

township, and that is being corrected in the software. This did not affect Petitioner’s 

taxable value. Mr. Wauldron said that the issue should be corrected by the time the 

2026 assessments are done, and Petitioner should see a significant adjustment in his 

2026 assessment. However, there will also be an adjustment due to a garage being 

added to the roll. 

 

Mr. Wauldron noted that in addition to the $970,000 sale cited by Petitioner, there were 

two other sales in the area: $1.3 million in May 2023 and $1.12 million in November 

2023. 

 

Mr. Wauldron could not explain why the assessed value of the home that sold for 

$970,000 had not changed, as alleged by Petitioner. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at 226 E. Fifth Street in Leelanau Township, in 

Leelanau County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 

3. Petitioner submitted an analysis of the 2024 and 2025 taxable values, assessed 

values, and state-equalized values for the subject and 17 properties nearby. 

Petitioner did not submit a valuation disclosure that applied the cost, income, or 

sales comparison approaches. 

4. Respondent submitted valuation evidence in the form of a mass appraisal cost 

approach. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion support the Tribunal’s determination:

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 5 of 8 

 

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 

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 

 

13 MCL 205.737(3). 

14 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 

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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 6 of 8 

 

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 

 

Although Petitioner provided some evidence in this case, it is not sufficient to meet the 

burden of going forward. Petitioner submitted an analysis of the 2024 and 2025 taxable 

values, assessed values and state equalized values for the subject and 17 properties 

nearby, to demonstrate Petitioner’s belief that property is not uniformly assessed and 

that new construction is unfairly assessed at higher taxable values. 

 

Petitioner’s comparison of tax assessments of his property to other properties is 

misplaced and cannot be used as credible evidence of the TCV of the subject property. 

Comparing the AVs and TVs of various properties is not a valid comparison and 

provides no meaningful data to determine the TCV or TV for the subject for the years at 

issue. As noted above, TCV is customarily determined using one of three widely 

accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, or market. Assessment comparisons are 

not the equivalent of a comparative market analysis. 

 

Assessed values (AV) are not market indicators, but rather are the result of a mass 

appraisal, cost less depreciation approach to value, which includes market adjustments 

using an Economic Condition Factor (ECF). Various steps go into constructing each 

assessment, and mere comparison of AVs discounts the numerous factors considered 

for each individual assessment. Moreover, no matter how similar two or more parcels of 

property appear to be, such comparisons can create highly misleading results since vital 

distinctions can be overlooked, as can the various applicable adjustments and 

manipulations of market-based values. Additionally, while a property’s AV is directly 

related to its true cash or fair market value, taxable value (TV) is determined pursuant to 

Proposal A and is calculated by multiplying the prior year’s TV by the inflation rate 

multiplier for the current year. Except for additions and losses to a property, annual 

increases in the property’s TV are limited to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is 

less. As such, TV can vary greatly depending upon a number of factors that are not 

necessarily related to a property’s value, including, but not limited to the last date of 

sale, and the TV of one property is therefore not probative of the TV of another. 

 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s assessment analysis and comparisons are given 

no weight or credibility in the independent determination of market value for the subject 

property. Consequently, 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. 

 

 

 

 

24 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 

25 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 7 of 8 

 

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. 

 

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: September 11, 2025

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 8 of 8 

 

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

← View full record