scpetition_classification.pdf
Keith S Leaning Petitioner V Township Of Garfield Respondent · 26-002533-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 1 of 3 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. Petitioner’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Individual Local Unit of Government: First Name keith M.I. S Last Name Leaning Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 25582 Hopewell Rd City or Town Gambier State Ohio ZIP Code 43022 Telephone Number 7403044417 E-mail Address keith.leaning@owenscorning.com Subject Property Information: How many parcels are you appealing? 1 If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel Yes Property Address (No., Street, City, St, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 3473 W.Sharon Rd SE Fife Lake Michigan 49633 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Garfield (KALKASKA) County Kalkaska Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal: I purchased the property in August 2024 which triggered a property tax review on the one parcel with structures (per the tax code) as the land was already enrolled in QFP. The re-valuation details were requested & after many months were received in Oct of 2025 from the Township Tax assessor's office. I was confused by the valuation worksheet as it seemed excessive with no support provided and I hired a local certified Real Estate Appraiser in the immediate area (Robert Reamer) to perform an appraisal of the structures only, to determine if a 3rd party appraisal would support the Township position. It did not and provided the detail to support the appraiser's conclusion. The appraiser visited the property and performed an assessment of similar structures in Kalkaska County to complete his report. I shared that report with the Township tax assessor's office and requested they contact the Real Estate Appraiser to answer their questions as I was not able to do. I made sure the Appraiser was ready and available to receive their contact, yet the Township never attempted to make contact. In summary, the Real Estate Appraisal differed significantly from the Township tax assessor and was then ignored at the review with no reason given as to why. The Township review was finally completed in March of 2026. Summary comments; I have struggled from the onset of the interactions with this Township to receive answers to simple questions, to receive documents supporting their stated positions, experienced challenges to the legitimacy of my request for additional information & for a review, excuses as to why a review was not appropriate, delays in scheduling a review and ignoring all information presented that differed from their own view that was supported by no external assessment or appraisal process. I felt then, as I do today that my actions & questions were reasonable. All are documented and I have made all available to no avail. I see no other recourse than to respectfully ask for this Tribunals review.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 2 of 3 Jurisdictional Issues: Did you protest the classification at the March Board of Review? Yes If No, please check the applicable reason(s): Explanation: Year(s) Under Appeal: 2025 & 2026 Classification Information: Parcel Identification Number: 007-001-003-55 Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Personal (check one) Residential (check one) What do you believe is the property’s classification? Personal (check one) Residential (check one) If improved property, how is the property currently being used? The Real Estate Appraisers report confirms the property and structures on this parcel cannot be used as a permanent residence. I do not dispute the parcel should be classified as "Residential", my dispute is the value of those structures given there will never be utilities, as the property sits behind state land and 3/4 mile from the public road. I have made enquiries to the MDNR who will not grant an easement for utility services to be provided form W.Sharon Rd SE. As such, the Appraisal report de-values the structures accordingly. Simply stated, it may be classified as "Residential" yet it can never be used for that purpose, and the Township assessment ignores these facts. If improved property, for what use was the property designed? Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner’s Signature: /s/ keith leaning Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /s/
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 3 of 3 Fee Information: If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for the filing of this appeal. A fee of $75.00 is required for the filing of a classification appeal. Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?