26-000377 SC-Respondent Answer.pdf
Julie Chopp, Petitioner V Township Of Green Oak, Respondent · 26-000377-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING MTT DOCKET NO. 26-000377 Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information Unit of Government Township of Green Oak Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route): 10001 Silver Lake Rd City or Town: State: ZIP Code: Brighton MI__48116 Telephone mer eq 0-231 -1 333 x1 05 Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): christina.yaeger@greenoaktwp.com Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information |} First Name: M.L: Last Name: Christina L Yaeger Firm Name (if any): . “Township of Green Oak Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route): 10001 Silver Lake Rd City or Town: State: ZIP Code: Brighton MI 48115 Telephone nmber gy 1 0-231 -1 333 x1 05 Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): christina.yaeger@greenoakiwp.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. Oa Yes Od No Not Applicable Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more for all tax years at issue? [J ves No
Page 2
ir 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 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Respondent Explanation 2026 Record Card and Sketch 2026 Valuation Reports (before/after snapshots) 2026 MBOR Appeal Documents General Property Tax Act 206 of 1893 Excerpt 211.27 Sale Listing Information Sheet & Photos 2026 Land Study 2026 ECF Study 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 O No If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March O July Od December If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? O Yes O 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 No If yes, explain Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? [1 ves 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? Section 6: Valuation Information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Number: 4 24 6-05-201 -012 Classification of Property: ~~ Real Personal [J (check one) Agricultural 1 Commercial (J Industrial ] Residential Timber-Cutover [1 ~~ Developmental [J Utility [J (check one) Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) established | Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: by the Board of Review: $430 400 , What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as true cash value)? $860,800 What do you believe is the assessed value? (multiply true cash What do you believe is the taxable value? (cannot exceed value by .5) $430,400 assessed value) $430,400 Signature *required = nt or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: Xora \b wad’ Christina L Yaeger ( |
Page 3
Julie Chopp v. Valuation Appeal —- Respondent Answer Docket No. Township of Green Oak Explanation of Answer to Appeal 26-000377 4716-05-201-012 Exhibit A Respondent states that the Petitioner filed a valuation appeal to the March Board of Review requesting a true cash value of $700,000 (assessed and taxable values of $350,000), based on the purchase price paid on December 30, 2025. The Board did not concur with the requested true cash value of $700,000; however, it did determine that the property had been assessed in excess of 50% of true cash value, consistent with the requirements of the General Property Tax Act, specifically MCL 211.27(1) and MCL 211.27(6). During Board deliberations, and upon further review in consultation with the Township Assessor, it was identified that the property’s construction class and effective age had been incorrectly assigned. After correcting these characteristics, the Assessor provided the Board with a revised valuation indicating a true cash value of $860,800. The Board accepted this corrected valuation and adjusted the assessed and taxable values to $430,400, reflecting 50% of the revised true cash value. Invalid subject sale verification. After verification of the sale, and subsequent communication with the listing agent, it was determined that the transaction constituted an expedited or forced sale due to extenuating health circumstances affecting the seller. Based on this additional information, the sale was reclassified from an initial outlier to an invalid sale and therefore excluded from the Respondent’s sales study. Respondent concurs with the March Board of Review’s final determination. Supporting documentation, including before-and-after valuation reports evidencing the correction, is attached. Attachments: 2026 Record Card and Sketch 2026 Valuation Report (before/after snapshots) 2026 MBOR Appeal Documents General Property Tax Act 206 of 1893 Excerpt 211.27 Sales Listing Information Sheet and Photos Land Study ECF Study