26-000046.pdf

Eschaton LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000046-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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

RECEIVED 

FEB 0 ¢ 2026 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MOAHR Docket No. 26-000046 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

IL. INTRODUCTION AND STANDARD 

Petitioner, Eschaton LLC, moves for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s January 14, 2026, 

Order of Dismissal, which dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an alleged failure 

to comply with MCL 205.735a(6). 

Reconsideration is warranted because the Tribunal misapprehended both the nature of the 

appeal and the operative notice date, resulting in a clear error of law. Specifically, the Tribunal 

assumed that Petitioner received timely notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value sufficient 

to trigger the May 31 statutory deadline. That assumption is incorrect. 

This Motion does not seek equitable relief. It identifies a jurisdictional and constitutional 

defect in the dismissal order. 

II. MATERIAL FACTS MISAPPREHENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL 

IE 

Petitioner did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until

3. 

That notice reflected substantive Board of Review action, including: 

a. 

Grant of a property exemption, 

b. 

Correction based on clerical error or mutual mistake of fact, and 

¢. 

A tax status change (BOR Reason Codes 14, 15, and 21). 

4. 

Petitioner filed their Tribunal petition on January 8, 2026, within the appeal 

period stated in the notice and within 30 days of receipt of the first notice of the 2025 assessment 

or taxable value.(See Exhibit 2) 

5. 

That this Honorable Court dismissed the Petition on January 14, 2026, for the 

following reasons: 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that: 

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal 

offices were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal 

has 

no 

equitable 

power 

to 

waive 

or 

otherwise 

disregard 

statutory 

filing 

requirements and deadlines, it has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief 

requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, _Mich_; _NW3d_(2025). (See Exhibit 

3) 

6. 

That this Honorable Court did not have the opportunity 

to consider that the 

Petitioner did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until December 9, 2025. 

7. 

That this Honorable Court not having the full benefit to consider that the Petitioner did 

not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until December 9, 2025, was a palpable 

defect. 

8. 

That if this Honorable Court had the full benefit to consider that the Petitioner did 

not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until December 9, 2025, it would have 

resulted in a different disposition of the case.

This Motion identifies a clear error of law arising from the Tribunal’s misapprehension of 

the notice date and the nature of the appeal. Because jurisdictional deadlines cannot run before 

notice is provided, reconsideration is required to prevent a due-process violation and an unlawful 

dismissal. 

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

a. 

Vacate the January 14, 2026, Order of Dismissal; 

b. 

Find that the appeal was timely based on the December 9, 2025, notice; 

c. 

Determine that MCL 205.735a(6) does not bar jurisdiction under these facts; and 

a. 

. 

Reinstate this matter for adjudication on the merits. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

DARWYN P. FAIR LAW PLLC 

[s/ Darwyn P. Fair 

DARWYN P. FAIR (P31266) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

Dated: February 2, 2026 

(313) 967-0595

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MOAHR Docket No. 26-000046 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Unless 

another 

rule 

provides 

a 

different 

procedure, 

motions 

for 

rehearing 

or 

reconsideration must be filed and served not later than 21 days after entry of an order deciding the 

motion, and no response or oral argument will occur unless the court directs otherwise. MCR 7.215 

and MCR 2.119(F)(3) MCR 2.119(F)(3) requires 

a party bringing 

a motion for rehearing or 

reconsideration 

to show “palpable error.” However, the “palpable error” language 

in MCR 

2.119(F)(3) is not mandatory and only provides guidance to a court for when it may be appropriate 

to consider a motion for rehearing or reconsideration. See, e.g., Prentis Family Found, Inc v 

Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Inst, 266 Mich App 39, 698 NW2d 900 (2005). It is always within 

the trial court’s discretion to grant “a second chance” to a motion that it has previously denied. 

Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 659, 617 NW2d 368 (2000). 

In the case at bar this Honorable Court did not have the opportunity to consider that the

this Honorable Court had the full benefit to consider that the Petitioner did not receive notice of 

the 2025 assessment or taxable value until December 9, 2025, it would have resulted in a different 

disposition of the case. 

It would be fundamentally unfair for this case to be dismissed when the 

Petitioner did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until December 9, 2025. 

I. THE TRIBUNAL MISAPPLIED MCL 205.735a(6) 

A. MCL 205.735a(6) cannot apply absent timely notice 

MCL 205.735a(6) presupposes that the taxpayer received timely notice of assessment or 

taxable value early enough in the tax year to permit: 

¢ 

A March Board of Review protest, and 

e 

A May 31 appeal to the Tribunal. 

Where no such notice is given, the statutory deadline cannot constitutionally run. A filing 

deadline that expires before notice is provided violates procedural due process and cannot 

divest the Tribunal of jurisdiction. 

The Order of Dismissal makes no finding as to when notice was provided. Instead, it 

assumes notice sufficient to trigger the May 31 deadline and dismisses on that basis alone. That 

assumption is factually and legally erroneous. 

B. This appeal is not a “standard valuation appeal” 

The Tribunal further erred by classifying this case as a routine valuation appeal governed 

by MCL 205.735a(6). The July Board of Review did not merely reaffirm a March assessment; it 

affirmatively altered the property’s tax status, including denying an exemption and correcting 

errors.

are materially distinct from ordinary valuation disputes and are not properly dismissed under a 

statute designed for March valuation protests. 

II. THE DECEMBER 9, 2025, NOTICE TRIGGERED THE APPEAL PERIOD 

The December 9, 2025 Board of Review notice expressly advised Petitioner that it could 

appeal to the Tribunal within 35 days. Because this was the first notice of the 2025 assessment 

or taxable value: 

a. 

It was the only legally operative notice; 

b. 

It triggered the appeal period as a matter of due process; and 

c. 

Petitioner’s January 8, 2026, filing was timely. 

The Tribunal’s dismissal effectively renders the notice meaningless and extinguishes appeal rights 

before they could be exercised. 

III. CONCLUSION 

This Motion identifies a clear error of law arising from the Tribunal’s misapprehension of 

the notice date and the nature of the appeal. Because jurisdictional deadlines cannot run before 

notice is provided, reconsideration is required to prevent a due-process violation and an unlawful 

dismissal. 

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

a. 

Vacate the January 14, 2026, Order of Dismissal; 

b. 

Find that the appeal was timely based on the December 9, 2025, notice; 

¢. 

Determine that MCL 205.735a(6) does not bar jurisdiction under these facts; and

DARWYN P. FAIR (P31266) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

Dated: February 2, 2026 

(313) 967-0595

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MOAHR Docket No. 26-000046 

Vv. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on February 3, 2026, 

I served the Petitioner’s Notice Filing Petition and 

Notice of Filing Motion for Reconsideration upon Respondent City of Detroit by first-class U.S. 

Mail, addressed to the Corporation Counsel, City of Detroit Law Department, at 2 Woodward 

Ave., Suite 500, Detroit, MI 48226. 

/s/ Darwyn 

P. Fair 

Darwyn P. Fair (P31266) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Date: February 2, 2026 

(313) 967-0595

EXHIBIT 1

Parcel Number: 

03003238. 

Owner Name / Address: 

ESCHATONLLC 

Property Class: 

Capture Districts: 

Property Address: 

School District: 

CITY OF DETROIT 

2025 DECEMBER BOR AFFIDAVIT OF CORRECTION 

FOR 2025 ASSESSMENTS 

Tax Billing / Special Acts Info: 

District: 

05 

Petition #: 

D-06160 

201 

4535 CHRYSLER 

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Ad Valorem 

Current Assessed Value: 

0 

Corrected Assessed Value: 

Current Taxable Value: 

Current Principal Residence Exemption: 

BOARD OF REVIEW REASON CODE NUMBER [See below for description/explanation of code number]: 

Description of Code Numbers: 

01 Market Value 

02 Appeal Denied/Sustained 

03 Did Not Appear 

04 50% Partial Poverty Granted 

04A 50% Partial Poverty Granted Deviate 

04B 50% Partial Poverty Granted Spee. Handling 

04C 25% Partial Poverty Granted 

04D 25% Partial Poverty Granted Deviate 

04E 25% Partial Poverty Granted Spee. Handling 

05 FULL Poverty Granted 

05A FULL Poverty Granted Deviate 

05B FULL Poverty Granted Spec. Handling 

06 Poverty Denied 

06A Poverty Denied Deviate 

06B Poverty Denied Spee. Handling 

07 Principal Residence % Changed by Treasury 

08 Principal Residence Exemption Approved 

09 Principal Residence Exemption Denied 

10 Principal Residence Exemption Rescinded 

11 Principal Residence Exemption Denied By County 

12 Principal Residence Exemption Withdrawn 

13 Demolition of Structure 

14 Clerical Error/Mutual Mistake of Fact 

15 Property Exemption Granted 

15A Senior Housing PILT Exemption 

16 Property Exemption Denied 

17 Previously Omitted Property 

18 Class Change for Billing Purposes 

0 

Corrected Taxable Value: 

.00% 

22 To Renaissance Zone 

22A To 25% Renaissance Zone 

22B To 50% Renaissance Zone 

22C To 75% Renaissance Zone 

23 To Renaissance Zone / IFT 

23A To 25% Renaissance Zone / IFT 

23B To 50% Renaissance Zone / IFT 

23C To 75% Renaissance Zone / IFT 

24 NEZ - Land Value 

25 NEZ - Building Value 

26 Uncap / Recap 

27 NEZ Removed 

28 Retired in Error 

29 All Assessable Personal Property not Reported 

30 Amended Personal Property Return 

31 Transferred Personal Property Locations 

32 New Personal Property Business 

33 Out of Business 

34 Qualified Personal Property not Reported 

35 Stmt not Filed - Estimated 

36 Stmt Filed Late - After Asmt Notice 

37 Stmt Filed Timely 

38 External Obsolescence 

39 Functional Obsolescence 

40 Obsolescence 

41 MTT/STC 

41A MTT / STC Carry Fow'd 

42 Transferred To/From Gov't Agency 

42A To Land Bank Sale Spec Act 

Corrected Principal Residence Exemption: 

288,900 

280,980 

00% 

16,14 

44 Adjustment duc to Audit Results 

45 To OPRA 

45A From OPRA 

46 To PILT 

46A From PILT 

47 To DDA 

47A From DDA 

48 To CFT, CRA 

48A From CFT, CRA 

49 MBOR Only Prop Class Grant 

49A MBOR Only Prop Class Denial 

50 Board of Review Opinion 

50A Board of Review-No Consideration 

51 To IFT 

51A From IFT 

52 To Ren Zone Tool & Die 

52A From Ren Zone Tool & Die 

53 To Post 94 IFT Ren Zone Tool & Die 

53A From Post 94 IFT Ren Zone Tool & Die 

54 To Ren Zone-Extension 

54A From Ren Zone-Extension 

55 To Sr Ctzn PILT 

55A From Sr Ctzn PILT 

56 Veteran Exemption Granted 

57 Veteran Exemption Denied 

58 Court Order 

59 Rate of Taxation 

59A From TID 

61 Qualified AG - Granted

EXHIBIT 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner 

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 26-000046 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

Filer type: Organization 

First Name/Company Name 

M.L 

Last Name 

ESCATION LCC 

Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

4535 Chrysler 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Detroit 

Michigan 

48201 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

313994492 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

NH00996937@aol.com 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.L 

Last Name 

Danwyn 

Fair 

Firm Name (if any) 

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

535 Griswold 

Ste 111-554 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Detroit 

Michigan 

48226 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

313-967-0595 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

dpfair@dpfairtaw.com 

Section 5: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation — Fill out Sections 

4, 5, & 6 below 

Section 6: Subject Property Information

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

ORLENE HAWKS 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values, Taxable Value Only (calculation), Tax Bill, Other (please explain) 

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal 

Parcel Number: 

03003238 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Commercial 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review: 

288900 

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 

280980 

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 

0 

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 

0 

If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 

0 

Section 9: Assessment Information 

Type of Tax Asscssment(s): 

Assessment Number(s): 

Check all that is being appealed: 

‘Check what action prompted this appeal: 

If “other,” please explain: 

Section 10: Special Assessment Information 

Type of Special Assessment: 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

TFN, please explain:

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TFimproved property, how is the property currently being used? 

Timproved property, for what use was the property designed? 

Fee Information 

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. 

If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed. 

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: 

Your filing fee is: 

$100,000.00 and under 

$250.00 

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 

$400.00 

$Over $500,000.00 

$600.00 

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00. 

A foe of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal. 

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of 

an Equalization Tax Appeal. 

A foe of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal. 

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal 

Electronic Signature *Typing 

your name below will serve as your signature 

yping 

y 

your 

sig: 

Petitioner or Attomey/Authorized Representatives Signature: 

/s/ Darwyn P Fair

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MOAHR Docket No. 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. Property Parcel No: 03003238 

2. The property identified above is real property. The property is Commercial property. 

3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? 

NA 

4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? 

YES 

5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements 

filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

NA 

6. The property identified above is classified as 

201- COMMERCIAL 

7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s 

March __ July December Board of Review.

NA 

9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification 

or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list 

the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over 

the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

We have timely appealed. 

10. The property or properties at issue are located in WAYNE County. The property or properties’ 

address is: 

4535 CHRYSLER 

DETROIT, MI 48201 

11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental 

unit): 

CITY OF DETROIT 

12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

375 LODGE 

DETROIT, MI 48214 

13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

X 

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

X__the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable 

value 

is 

at issue, 

is there 

a dispute 

as 

to the value of an addition 

or loss? X Yes 

_ 

No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment _ 

X 

the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCLA 

125.1415a. 

14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 

2025 

15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon 

which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach 

additional page if necessary):

2025 

NA 

288900 

280980 

17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

0 

0 

0 

18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

NA 

288900 

280980 

19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

0 

0 

0 

20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested 

(attach additional page if necessary): 

“The City of Detroit Office of the Assessor has failed to establish that the Tax Payor is not 

eligible for commercial exemption under MCLA 125.1415a 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

[SI DARWYN P. FAIR 

Email Address: dpfair@dpfairlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

535 GRISWOLD

EXHIBIT 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Eschaton LCC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

City of Detroit, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that: 

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no 

equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and 

deadlines, 

it has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested. See 

Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; 

_ NW3d__ (2025). 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case. 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

Page 2 of 2 

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. 

If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” 

If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, 

it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

/ 

J 

od 

] 

(Fal Lets 

+ 

H Alr~ 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair 

By: 

Entered: January 14, 2026 

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

DARWYN P. FAIR LAW, PLLC 

Attorney at Law 

535 Griswold, Suite 111-554 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 967-0595 

(313) 731-0585 Fax 

(313) 407-6631 Direct Line 

dpfair@dpfairlaw.com 

January 3, 2026 

Via Federal Express 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

611 W. Ottawa Street 

Lansing, MI 48933 

Re: 

Docket No 26-000048 

Plymouth United Church 

Docket No. 26-000046 

Eschaton LLC 

Docket No. 26-000045 

MR Non Profit Housing Corporation 

Enclosed are Motion for Reconsideration for the above-mentioned matters. 

Please file in your 

normal manner. 

I have also enclosed 

a check 

in the amount of $50 for each Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed please contact me 

at the above contact 

information. 

Very truly yours, 

DARWYN P. FAIR LAW, PLLC 

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair 

Darwyn P. Fair 

Cc: 

City of Detroit, Corporation Counsel

| Darwyn P. Fair 

535 Griswold 

Ste 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

\ \ 7 

( 

\ 

( Michigan Tax Tribunal 

| 611 W. Ottawa Street 

| Lansing, MI 48933

nvelo

recycle

← View full record