FSB IM POS.pdf
Flagstar Bank Na, Petitioner Vs. City Of Iron Mountain, Respondent · 25-001896-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL FLAGSTAR BANK, NA, Petitioner, V. MTT Docket # 25-001896 CITY OF IRON MOUNTAIN, Respondent. PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OAKLAND) Aaron M. Fales, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on September 12, 2025 he served a copy of Petitioner's Petition on the parties named on the attached list. Aaron M. Fales
Page 2
BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: IRON MOUNTAIN £01 S. STEPHENSON AVENUE RON MOUNT . MI £9801 DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZAT! DICKINSON COUNTY PO BOX 609 IRON MOUNTAIN, Mi 49301-0609
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Flagstar Bank NA, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No.: 25-001896 City Of Iron Mountain, Respondent. NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of the notice may result in the dismissal of this case. Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so will result in Respondent being placed in default. The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements or the Tribunal’s rules. By: __ Tribunal Clerk Entered: July 29, 2025 PROOF OF SERVICE | 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 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
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Petitioner, MTT Docket #25. 001896 Vs. Parcel No. 051-104-811-00 CITY OF IRON MOUNTAIN, Respondent. / PETITION FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A. (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: [= Petitioner's principal office address is 5151 Corporate Dr., Troy, Ml 48098. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on real property tax parcel no. 051-104-811-00 (Petitioner's Property"), at 1805 S. Stephenson Ave., Iron Mt., Ml. 2. Respondent, City of Iron Mountain, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's Property. 3. In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be $730,721 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $1,136,400 resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the tenative equalization factor.
Page 5
4. Petitioner's Property is classified as Commercial Real Property. Petitioner's Property is a bank building. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used as a bank branch. 5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 7. 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 and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (@) 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, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes: (c) The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the frue cash value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and,
Page 6
(d) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against 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 reducing the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $730,721 to $350,000, and reducing the 2025 assessed and state equalized values of Petitioner's Property from $1,136,400 to $350,000, and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner By: i” Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 767-9840 Dated: May 26, 2025