24-003396_Dismiss.pdf
Jolisa Brooks, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003396-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 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 Jolisa Brooks, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003396 v Case Type: Valuation City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER OF DISMISSAL Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: May 29, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Jolisa Brooks Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Isaac DeGraffenreid 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 May 31, 2024, and Respondent filed an Answer on September 24, 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.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 2 of 7 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 2. 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: 27080907 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 1. Evidence, filed on May 31, 2024 a. Explanatory Letter. b. Renovation Receipts. c. Subject Property Photographs. d. Notice from Assessor’s Review Period dated February 22, 2024. e. 2024 March Board of Review Decision dated May 15, 2024. No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 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.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 3 of 7 Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner purchased the subject property in March 2021. Petitioner is working on repairs to the home. Petitioner argued at the BOR that the subject dwelling has 1,900 square feet and not 2,200 square feet. Likewise, the subject has 1 ½ baths and not 3 baths. Petitioner has invested lots of money in the home. Petitioner has reviewed Respondent’s sales which are all more modernized and are bigger dwellings than the subject. Petitioner still needs to put more money into the home. Petitioner also appealed to the 2023 March BOR but was put off by the board members. On rebuttal, Petitioner argues that the subject’s SEV for 2025 is $125,700 according to BS&A records. Petitioner still does not understand Respondent’s changes in the AV/SEV. Overall, the assessments appear to be unjust. Petitioner further argues that other larger homes in the neighborhood are paying less in property taxes than the subject. Again, Petitioner still does not understand the TV relative to changes in the SEV/AV. Petitioner questions whether the TV can be reviewed based on the condition of the home. The issue of inflation is a problem. Petitioner asserts that 30% of her mortgage payment goes to property taxes. This is not proportionate based on the condition and value of the home. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year(s) at issue: Parcel Number: 27080907 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $238,000 $119,000 $107,493 Respondent offered the following exhibits: 1. Evidence, filed on May 13, 2025 a. Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid. No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent reviewed the subject sales history including the 2021 purchase by Petitioner. The subject property uncapped for 2022. Petitioner did attend the 2024 March BOR in which the assessed value was reduced from $181,900 to $119,000. Respondent points out the label “improved” refers to the property that has structures and is not a vacant property. On rebuttal, Respondent points out that the 2024 TV is $107,493 and the 2025 TV is $110,825. Petitioner could have the assessing staff inspect the subject property to clarify descriptive items (baths, dwelling size, garage) on the record card.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 4 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 16215 Warwick Street, in the city of Detroit and within Wayne County. 2. The subject property is classified as Residential. 3. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 2021. 4. Petitioner submitted cost receipts and property photographs as evidence. 5. Respondent’s sales comparison approach included three sales which all occurred in 2023. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.11 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.12 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”13 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.14 All evidence submitted by both parties was considered in reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this section of the Opinion and Judgment, the presiding judge has determined that this evidence shall be given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in reaching a decision in this case is discussed below. Highest and Best Use Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as residential. Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”15 “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.”16 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an independent 11 MCL 205.735a(2). 12 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 13 Antisdale at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 14 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 15 MCL 205.737(3). 16 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992).
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 5 of 7 determination of value,17 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with evidence.”18 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.”19 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.20 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”21 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.22 “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.”23 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”24 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.”25 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.26 “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.”27 17 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 18 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). 19 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). 20 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); 21 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 22 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. 23 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). 24 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). 25 MCL 211.27(1). 26 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 27 Id.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 6 of 7 Although Petitioner provided some evidence for the 2024 tax year, it is not sufficient to meet the burden of going forward. Specifically, Petitioner submitted cost repair receipts and property photographs. However, this evidence does not clarify Petitioner’s contention of TCV for the property as of December 31, 2023. The Tribunal is unable to assume or ascertain the validity of such information without any other corroborating evidence. Said differently, Petitioner’s TCV contention was not supported by any market evidence. Market value must be tied to market evidence. Likewise, a subject property’s information must be applied to the market. For these reasons, Petitioner’s cost receipts and photographs do not logically or factually link to the subject market. Therefore, 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 2024 and 2025 tax years is warranted. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. This Order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this 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 decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 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. By Date Entered: June 17, 2025
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003396 Page 7 of 7 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