03698683.pdf
Macatawa Bank, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Grand Rapids, Respondent · 25-002794-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
{03691868 1 }
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
_____________________
MACATAWA BANK, N.A.,
Petitioner,
v
GRAND RAPIDS CHARTER TOWNSHIP,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
MTT Docket No. 25-002794
Parcel No. 41-14-36-451-009
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO
ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY
TAX PETITION
Peter D. Rhoades (P49515)
Rhoades McKee PC
Counsel for Petitioner
PO Box 2271
Holland, MI 49422
(616) 233-5237
pdrhoades@rhoadesmckee.com
_____________________________________/
Joshua D. Beard (P73388)
Mika Meyers PLC
Counsel for Respondent
900 Monroe Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 632-8000
tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com
jbeard@mikameyers.com
Respondent, Grand Rapids Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Mika Meyers
PLC, answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows:
1.
Property Parcel No: 41-14-36-451-009. (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach
a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.)
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that Property Parcel No. 41-14-36-451-009 is the subject
of this uncapping appeal.
2.
The property identified above is real.
ANSWER:
The allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition is admitted.
3.
If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties
contiguous? _ Yes _No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-contiguous parcel.)Page 2
2
{03691868 1 }
ANSWER: The form allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition appear to be
inapplicable because it appears that this appeal involves a single parcel and therefore no
answer is required.
4.
Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under
appeal? _Yes X No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not
located on a parcel of real property under appeal.)
ANSWER:
The form allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition appear to be
inapplicable because this appeal concerns a parcel of real, not personal, property and
therefore no answer is required.
5.
If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property
statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary). N/A
ANSWER:
The form allegations contained in paragraph 5 of this Petition appear to be
inapplicable because this appeal concerns a parcel of real, not personal, property and
therefore no answer is required.
6.
The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 6 of this Petition are admitted.
7.
If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to
Respondent’s X March _ July _ December Board of Review.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition are admitted.
8.
If a protest was required and no protest was made, 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): N/A
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition appear to be
inapplicable because a protest was made before the March Board of Review.Page 3
3
{03691868 1 }
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): Appeal
is timely.
ANSWER:
The allegations in paragraph 9 of the Petition are admitted.
10.
The property or properties at issue are located in Kent County. The property or
properties’ address is: 4590 Cascade Road SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546.
ANSWER:
The allegations in paragraph 10 of the Petition are admitted.
11.
The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local
governmental unit): Grand Rapids Charter Township.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition are admitted.
12.
Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is 10753 Macatawa Drive,
Holland, Michigan 49424.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition are admitted upon
information and belief.
13.
This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):
X the property or properties’ taxable values only
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition are admitted upon
information and belief.
14.
The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition are admitted.Page 4
4
{03691868 1 }
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): N/A
ANSWER:
The form allegations in paragraph 15 of the Petition appear to be inapplicable
because it does not appear that Petitioner is attempting to appeal prior tax years.
16.
The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board
of Review are:
Tax Year
True Cash Value
Assessed Value
Taxable Value
2025
$691,000.00
$345,500.00
$345,500.00
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 16 of this Petition are admitted as the
true cash, assessed and taxable values on the tax roll.
17.
Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are:
Tax Year
True Cash Value
Assessed Value
Taxable Value
2025
$691,000.00
$345,500.00
$304,875.00
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that the allegations contained in paragraph 17 constitute
Petitioner’s 2025 value contentions for the property.
18.
The values in dispute for the property identified above are:
Tax Year
True Cash Value
Assessed Value
Taxable Value
2025
$0.00
$0.00
$40,625.00
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that based upon Petitioner’s contentions of value, the
allegations in paragraph 18 related to the true cash, assessed and taxable values appear to
reflect the values in dispute.
19.
Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary):
Reinstatement of “cap” on the Property’s Taxable Value. Please see attachment for additional
information.Page 5
5
{03691868 1 }
ANSWER:
Respondent concurs with Petitioner’s request for relief, please see attachment
for additional details.
20.
List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief
requested (attach additional page if necessary): Please see attachment for facts and support related
to the relief requested.
ANSWER:
Please see attachment for answer.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal grant
Petitioner the relief requested in the Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
MIKA MEYERS PLC
Attorneys for Respondent
Dated: August 21, 2025
By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard
Joshua D. Beard (P73388)
900 Monroe Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 632-8000
tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.comPage 6
{03692452 1 }
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
_____________________
MACATAWA BANK, N.A.,
Petitioner,
v
GRAND RAPIDS CHARTER TOWNSHIP,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
MTT Docket No. 25-002794
Parcel No. 41-14-36-451-009
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO
ATTACHMENT TO ENTIRE
TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX
PETITION
Peter D. Rhoades (P49515)
Rhoades McKee PC
Counsel for Petitioner
PO Box 2271
Holland, MI 49422
(616) 233-5237
pdrhoades@rhoadesmckee.com
_____________________________________/
Joshua D. Beard (P73388)
Mika Meyers PLC
Counsel for Respondent
900 Monroe Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 632-8000
tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com
jbeard@mikameyers.com
Respondent, Grand Rapids Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Mika Meyers
PLC, answers Petitioner’s Attachment to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows:
1.
Petitioner, Macatawa Bank, N.A. (“Bank”), is a national banking association, with
an address of 10753 Macatawa Drive, Holland, Michigan 49424.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 10753 Macatawa Drive, Holland, Michigan 49424 is
Petitioner’s principal address.
2.
Petitioner owns certain property with Property Parcel No. 41-14-36-451-009,
commonly known as 4590 Cascade Road SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 (the “Property”).
The Property is classified as 201: Commercial-Improved, Real Property.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 2 are admitted.
3.
The Property was designed and is currently used as a bank branch.Page 7
2
{03692452 1 }
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 3 are admitted.
4.
Respondent, Grand Rapids Charter Township, levies and collects the property
taxes on the Property.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 4 are admitted.
5.
This matter involves Respondent’s decision to uncap the taxable value of the
Property for the 2025 tax year. Petitioner disputes Respondent’s decision to uncap the taxable
value of the Property. There is otherwise not a dispute relative to valuation, assessment or the value
of any addition or loss.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 5 are admitted.
6.
Respondent issued its 2025 Notice of Assessment indicating that there was a
transfer of ownership of the Property in 2024, and Respondent adjusted the taxable value of the
Property so as to “uncap” its taxable value, increasing such amount by $49,792.00 or 16.84% over
the previous year’s taxable value.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 6 are admitted.
7.
Petitioner did not execute and record a deed or similar instrument conveying title
to the Property in 2024, but Petitioner assumes that Respondent decided to uncap the taxable value
of the Property following the merger transaction involving Macatawa Bank Corporation and
Wintrust Financial Corporation that closed on August 1, 2024 (the “Transaction”).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 7 are admitted upon information and
belief.
8.
The Transaction involved the merger of Macatawa Bank Corporation, a Michigan
corporation (“Bank Corp”), into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wintrust Financial Corporation, an
Illinois corporation (“Wintrust”). Bank Corp was the parent company of Petitioner. The
Transaction did not cause a change in Petitioner, but a change in Petitioner’s parent company.Page 8
3
{03692452 1 }
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 8 are admitted.
9.
The Transaction was completed as a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “IRC”).
ANSWER:
Based on evidence provided to Respondent as of the date of this Answer, the
allegations in paragraph 9 are admitted.
10.
The Bank continues to own the Property, and the Transaction did not involve any
transfer or conveyance of the Property by deed or similar instrument.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 10 are admitted.
11.
The Transaction did not cause a “transfer of ownership” of the Property, as that
phrase is defined and used in the Michigan General Property Tax Act, because the Transaction
was completed as a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a) of the IRC. Under MCL
211.27a(7)(n), any direct or indirect transfer of property resulting from a transaction that qualifies
as a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a) of the IRC does not cause a “transfer of
ownership.”
ANSWER:
Based on evidence provided to Respondent as of the date of this Answer, the
allegations in paragraph 11 are admitted.
12.
Without a transfer of ownership occurring, Respondent was not permitted to adjust
the taxable value of the Property by more than an amount equal to the lesser of 1.05 or the inflation
rate. MCL 211.27a(2)(a).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 12 are admitted.
13.
Petitioner appealed Respondent’s decision to uncap the taxable value of the
Property during the 2025 March Board of Review. The 2025 March Board of Review denied
Petitioner’s request.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in paragraph 13 are admitted.Page 9
4
{03692452 1 }
14.
Petitioner now requests that the Tribunal enter an order reinstating the cap on the
Property’s taxable value, establishing the taxable value of the Property for the 2025 tax year as
$304,875.00
ANSWER:
Respondent concurs with Petitioner’s request for relief. By way of further
answer, the taxable value of the Property for the 2024 tax year was $295,708 and the inflation
rate multiplier for the 2025 tax year is 1.031 ($295,708 x 1.031 = $304,874.948).
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal grant
Petitioner the relief request in the Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
MIKA MEYERS PLC
Attorneys for Respondent
Dated: August 21, 2025
By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard
Joshua D. Beard (P73388)
900 Monroe Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 632-8000
tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com