Final Documents.pdf
Buffie L Burns, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-002646-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Buffie L Burns, Petitioner, v. MTT Docket No. 25-002646-TT City Of Detroit, Respondent. ___________________________ PROOF OF SERVICE On 9/30/2026, I emailed the Respondent’s Proof of Service, and Valuation Disclosure, for this appeal to: Michigan Tax Tribunal PO Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 And e-mailed a copy to Petitioner’s Representative: Buffie L Burns [detbest@yahoo.com] 813 Harcourt Rd Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. Deon Dismuke Dated : 9/30/2026 Deon Dismuke Appraiser IV, MCAO,MCPPE Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 2 Woodward Ave., Suite 804 Detroit, Michigan 48226
Page 2
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Introduction According to the “Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th edition” on page 377 through 380, the sale comparison approach to value is based on the following premises: “The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing similar properties that have recently sold with the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and adjusting the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market-derived elements of comparison. (…) The principle of substitution is fundamental to this approach.” “The sales comparison approach is applicable when sufficient data on recent market transactions is available.” Considering the difficulty in identifying sales that are truly comparable in every aspect to the subject, both physically and economically, quantitative adjustments had to be estimated based on the Assessor’s knowledge of the local market. It should also be noted that the assessor relied upon desktop reviews, 3rd party sources, as well as public records, to rate the condition of the of the comparable sales. If these facts proved to be erroneous, they could alter the opinion of value developed through the sales comparison approach.
Page 3
Positive adjustments were granted for characteristics inferior to that of the subject, while negative adjustments were granted for items superior to that of the subject: FINAL RECONCILATION: In the sales comparison approach, Sale #1 appears to be the most comparable to the subject. Thus, greater weight was given to sale #1, and an indication of value of $70 per square foot was derived from the sales comparison approach, which a TCV of $96,000 was derived for this property.