24-003548 signed.pdf

Sharon G Bath, Petitioner V Township Of Marion, Respondent · 24-003548-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 

 

Sharon G Bath, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 MTT Docket No. 24-003548 

 

Marion Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Nancy Klukowski, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

September 10, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Kevin Roberts, Petitioner’s son 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Matthew Dedes, 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 June 27, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on November 14, 2024. 

 

On November 14, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for 

failing to file an answer to the petition. Respondent subsequently cured its default the 

same day that the order was issued. On November 19, 2024, 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 the 2024 tax year is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small 

Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for the 2025 tax year is not 

included in this proceeding, at the request of Petitioner.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. 24-003548 

Page 2 of 7 

 

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: 4710-18-300-013 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$99,245

$49,622

$49,622

 

 

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. 24-003548 

Page 3 of 7 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 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’s son indicated that 

Petitioner submitted photos to show the conditions around Petitioner’s property in the 

summer and winter. Petitioner’s son is aware that blight from a property is not 

supposed to be used to reduce the value of neighboring properties. They testified that 

the prior assessor, Lori Judson, reduced a neighbor’s property taxes after that neighbor 

complained about Petitioner’s property and another property, which was documented in 

Lori Judson’s notes. Petitioner’s son opined that this reduction was unfair because 

Petitioner’s property taxes were not reduced due to blight on other properties. 

 

Further, Petitioner’s son stated that there is also a pipeline and power lines, which 

create dangerous conditions, and there have been explosions. They also noted that a 

neighbor put in a drainage system that pushed water toward the road and on to 

Petitioner’s property, causing more water than normal to be on the property when it 

rains. Petitioner’s son feels that this should be taken into consideration. 

 

Petitioner’s son testified that when they asked for property record cards for properties 

other than Petitioner’s, the township told them that they had to pay an hourly fee to get 

that information. 

 

Petitioner’s son indicated that the comparable properties submitted by Respondent are 

fairly new compared to Petitioner’s property and some of the comparables are outside 

the township. They are under the impression that only homes in the township should be 

included. 

 

On rebuttal, Petitioner’s son reiterated that they were told by the prior assessor that they 

had to pay an hourly fee to obtain property record cards for any properties other than 

Petitioner’s. They believe that this was because Lori Judson did not appreciate people 

like them asking questions. They also wondered when the most recent aerial photos 

were taken. Petitioner’s son stated that Lori Judson had provided old photos, possibly 

from 2012, and told them that they were current in 2024, but they could tell the photos 

were not recent because there was construction that had been done and was not in the 

pictures. 

 

Petitioner’s son asserted that Lori Judson allowed a neighbor’s value and/or taxes to be 

lowered because of the neighbor’s complaints about Petitioner’s and another property, 

even though that is not supposed to be allowed. Petitioner’s son also testified that Lori 

Judson allowed the neighbor to make derogatory comments about Petitioner, and those 

comments were put in the records. Petitioner’s son assumed blight would be addressed 

by citations and they are aware of the township having show cause hearings about 

“junk” on other properties. 

 

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.

MTT Docket No. 24-003548 

Page 4 of 7 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

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

 

Parcel Number: 4710-18-300-013 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$428,000

$214,000

$119,414

 

Respondent’s revised contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 4710-18-300-013 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$427,950

$213,975

$119,414

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6, 8, 13, and 14 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. Respondent’s assessor submitted a 

sales comparison approach to support the assessment and they believe that the 

estimate of $427,950 may even be at the low end, given the current market conditions. 

They noted Petitioner’s proposed a TCV of $99,000 and indicated that no similar 

property has sold for that since at least 2012. 

 

Respondent’s assessor is new to the township but has seen notes in the records that 

functional obsolescence adjustments have been made to Petitioner’s property and other 

properties due to the ITC power plant and power lines east of Petitioner’s property. 

Respondent’s assessor further stated that recent aerial photography of Petitioner’s 

property shows a few outbuildings that may not be on the roll. 

 

Respondent’s assessor indicated that Respondent does not currently charge for 

property record cards and has no problem supplying those free of charge to taxpayers 

and residents. They cannot address what occurred with the prior assessor. 

 

Respondent’s assessor testified that Respondent is using new software and has aerial 

photos taken three to four times a year. The most recent photos were taken on 

April 17, 2025 and July 23, 2025. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

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

1. The subject property is located at 2821 Dutcher Road in Marion Township, in 

Livingston County. 

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

 

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. 24-003548 

Page 5 of 7 

 

3. Petitioner did not submit competent, material, and substantial evidence to meet 

the burden of going forward. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

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

 

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 

 

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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003548 

Page 6 of 7 

 

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 

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 asserted that there are numerous negative value 

influences on the subject property, caused by a power plant, power lines, and a 

pipeline, blight on neighboring properties, and a drainage system on a neighboring 

parcel, but Petitioner did not provide any evidence to establish the quantitative impact, if 

any, of the alleged influences on the property’s value. Petitioner submitted photographs 

of some of the issues, but the Tribunal cannot make a valuation determination from 

photos. 

 

Furthermore, as noted above, TCV is customarily determined using one of three widely 

accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, or market. Petitioner did not submit 

evidence that comports with any of these recognized valuation approaches. 

 

Based on the foregoing, 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. 

 

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 

 

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). 

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

25 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003548 

Page 7 of 7 

 

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: October 16, 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

← View full record