Judy Tax Tribunal 07072025 PDF Signed.pdf
Judy L Gentner, Petitioner V Township Of Burtchville, Respondent · 24-003589-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 |. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR N | BROW Henne MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) Y MTT Docket No. 24-008589 ~~ Township of Burtchville, MI Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE judy L Gentner states that on July 7th, 2025 he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [date of service] served a copy of the Proposed Opinion & Judgment _ relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] Township of Burtchwville Burtchville Township 4000 Burch Road Burtchville, MI 48059 Soda (uti. ure-of persar) aj who i is serving/mailing copy] Judy L Gentner [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy] 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, M1 48906
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON [. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Judy L Gentner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003589 Burtchville Township, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. . PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: May 20, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: ~~ Judy Gentner Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Shelly Baumeister PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property's true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $759,000 $379,500 $379,500 2025 $851,800 $425,900 $391,264 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property's assessment to the 2024 March BOR. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 8, 2024. The amount of the SEV or 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.! Further, the property's assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.? 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL - 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 - 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, Mi 48908 - Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE,, LANSING, MI 48906
Page 3
Michigan Tax Tribunal
Small Claims Division
MTT Docket No. 24-003589
To whom it may concern:
In reference to the 6500 Lakeshore Rd. Burtchville MI 48059, being an estate sale does not have
merit, it was in fact Market Based. The house was processed through a normal real-estate sale
for $695,000 in 2022. Furthermore, the house recently sold for $700,000 in 2025, Market Based
and Arm's Length Sale. This does not support the escalation in market value as stated.
It is also noted on rebuttal that the Respondent contends that there was an adjustment on the
property identified as 6500 Lakeshore, where the right-of-way from the adjacent drain spills into
the parce! because of erosion. This is not part of 6500 Lakeshore. The above is associated to
6508 Lakeshore, vacant land. What was not noted as evidence was that 6486 Lakeshore {subject
property), has a county drain easement running through the middle of the property. The
easement runs into the adjacent property to the north, 6490 Lakeshore, vacant land. Therefore,
not only does 6500 Lakeshore not receive an adjusted land property value for erosion, but 6486
Lakeshore {subject property) should receive the adjustment for the County Drain Easement.
There is a discrepancy about the direction from the State Tax Commission.
{ contacted Jane
Walsh (Treasury) about the process and guidelines for this hearing. She explained that the
purchase price of the house is not indicative of the TCV. “If correct figures have been used in
the Capped Value formula for the prior year Taxable Value and for the current Inflation Rate
Multiplier, the Board of Review cannot make a change that results in a different Capped Value
of the property. The sale price of a property is not the same as the true cash value of the
property. This is due to a variety of reasons, which include: an uninformed buyer, an
uninformed seller, insufficient marketing time, or buyer and seller are relatives.
MCL 211.27(6) states: “the purchase price paid in a transfer of property is not the presumptive
true cash value of the property transferred. In determining the true cash value of transferred
property, an assessing officer shall assess that property using the same valuation method
used to value all other property of that same classification in the assessing jurisdiction.” Jane
explained that the capped value is the best factor in determining the true value and not chasing
sales. The capped value is adjusted based on sales and other factors over time and is the true
representation of TCV in a particular sector of a housing market. She stated directly that it is the
intention of the state to be fair to everyone and that the capped value should be used. Taking
current sales is not representative of a housing market that is in a constant influx. Using capped
value is the constant that should be used in determining the TCV.Page 4
On page 6, paragraph 2, there is a noted change for the partitioner. The tribunal finds that the land value went from $211,468 down to $189,200. Thank you. Though | do not see it incorporated in the Proposed Judgement on page 1. In conclusion, | am requestioning the TCV of my house to be at the capped value minus the land value discrepancy from $211,468 to $189,200 (Diff. $22,268). Thank you for your time in this matter. Capped Value (SEV) $684,000 Adj Land Value $22,268 $661,732 SEV Taxable Value Final Adjusted Value: $661,732 / $330,866 Judy L. Gentner ~ Petitioner MTT Docket No. 24-003589 (WEA July 6, 2025 J
Page 5
Michigan Tax Tribunal
Small Claims Division
MTT Docket No. 24-003589
To whom it may concern,
Please note the documentation was submitted via email on 7/7/2025.
| was not able to submit
through the portal because my email address was not attached in the LARA system when the
case was created.
| worked with Savana to troubleshoot the issue and she was able to correct
multiple issue within the system.
Sequence of events:
Judgement Entered: 06/17/2025.
Mailed/Postmarked: 06/19/2025 (Which was a Holiday).
Received: 06/24/2025.
E-file: 07/06/2025 — Unable to access System. Setup incorrectly at LARA.
E-file/email: 07/07/2025 — email received. E-file would not allow access to case account.
Email not accepted by LARA ~ 07/08/2025. Email from LARA stating that documents had to be
uploaded through E-file.
Letter to Respondent delivered to the Township Accessor: 07/07/2025
E-file: 07/08/2025 — Savana at LARA corrected case account issues. Uploaded files.
Judy L. Gentner ~ Petitioner
fig of {fort
MTT Docket No. 24-003589