POAHD DD Sugar Hill LLC.pdf

Poah Dd Sugar Hill LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-002841-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.

QECENED 

RECEIVED 

NONE 

JN 0g 205 

L 

ac TRiBG A TAX TRIBUNAL 

1 

MICHIGAN 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

POAH DD Sugar Hill LLC, 

Petitioner, 

Ya 

MTT Docket No. 

City 

of 

Detroi 

Parcel Nos. 23002020.035N, 

tty ut 

Detrtt, 

23002020.047, 01001163. 

Respondent 

01001164.,01001165., and 

’ 

01001166. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

TranInfo: 

I 

" 

raninfo:a606 

 26021214-1 

06/03/2 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

a aki SA 

(313) 465-7420 

ID: 

HONIGHAN LLP 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Petition 

POAH DD Sugar Hill LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says: 

I. 

Petitioner's principal office address is One North LaSalle St., Ste. 1300, Chicago, 

IL 60602. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel numbers 

23002020.035N, 23002020.047, 01001163., 01001164. 01001165. and 01001166. (collectively, 

"Petitioner's Property"), with addresses that include 119 Garfield, Detroit, located in Wayne 

County, Michigan. The tax parcels are contiguous. 

2. 

Respondent, City of Detroit, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's

3. 

In 2025, Respondent set each assessed value and taxable value of Petitioner’s 

Property at the values shown in the chart below. Also included in the chart are Petitioner’s 

contended and requested values for 2025: 

Respondent's Original 

Petitioner's Requested 

2025 Values 

2025 Values 

Assessed/ 

Assessed/ 

Parcel No. 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

23002020.035N 

$2,884,900 

$1,549,386 

$1,200,000 

$1,200,000 

23002020.047 

$2,458,100 

$2,061,484 

$1,200,000 

$1,200,000] 

01001163. 

$208,200 

$178,290 

$130,000 

$130,000 

01001164. 

$295,800 

$199,601 

$130,000 

$130,000 

01001165. 

$252,400 

$192,797 

$130,000 

$130,000 

01001168. 

$189,700 

$160,534 

$130,000, 

$130,000 

TOTALS 

$6,289,100) 

$4,342,092 

$2,920,000 

$2,920,000 

4. 

The setting of the 2025 assessed values as shown above will result in state 

equalized values in the same amounts based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

5. 

Petitioner’s Property is classified as commercial improved. Petitioner’s Property 

is presently used or available for use for commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that 

Petitioner’s Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

6. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable 

value, and (d) uniformity. 

7. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a 

dispute relative to the value of a loss. 

8. 

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property.

(a) 

Each 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

Each 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

Each 2025 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, 

is based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s 

Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is based upon the application of wrong principles; 

and 

(d) 

Each 2025 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. 

10. 

Petitioner's Property includes multifamily units and to the best knowledge of the 

undersigned, Petitioner's Property is subject to a governmental regulatory agreement and some of 

the units receive government vouchers. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing each 

2025 assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner’s Property as shown in 

the table in paragraph three above; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable 

to such reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which 

it is entitled.

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Dated: June 2, 2025

Honigman LLP 

COSTS ADVANCED ACCOUNT 

I 

Invoice Date 

Invoice Number 

Invoice Narrative 

Payment Amount 

6/2/25 

] 

278024/544770/SLM 

#6725, 00% 

Filing Fee for Petition for 6 Parcels 

21074678.1

← View full record