MTT_Classification_Appeal_Final_Updated.pdf
Alex Kalani Petitioner Vs. Township Of Rich Respondent · 26-002453-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
Michigan Tax Tribunal – Small Claims Division Classification Appeal Packet Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Property Address: 8674 Silverwood Rd, Rich Township, Sanilac County Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust Prepared by: Alex Kalani Cover Letter Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Small Claims Petition — Classification Appeal Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed is a Small Claims Petition appealing the improper reclassification of the above parcel. The property was classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years, despite never being used for row crops or commercial farming. The assessor reclassified the property in September 2022, the same month it was purchased, without inspection, without identifying any change in use, and without maintaining required documentation, as confirmed by a FOIA denial. The Board of Review denied the appeal using the incorrect “50% farming” standard, which applies only to the Qualified Agricultural Exemption. The Board did not review the evidence submitted, did not apply MCL 211.34c, and was influenced by the assessor during the hearing. One Board member had personal involvement with the property, including hunting it during 2023, 2024, and 2025, and meeting with me between 2022 and 2025 regarding improvements, yet did not disclose this or recuse himself. This appeal seeks correction of the classification to Agricultural (101). Respectfully,
Page 2
Alex Kalani Petition Narrative This section includes the nature of the appeal, statement of the issue, and relief requested. Statement of Facts This section includes all factual background, including parcel history, reclassification, and interactions with officials. Additional facts include the township clerk’s FOIA denial, lack of township records, and audit log irregularities. Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years This affidavit affirms that the petitioner served as a full-time caregiver for his father from 2021 through September 2025. Legal Argument This section includes all legal arguments, including statutory violations, improper standards, and assessor misconduct. Includes assessor’s 'market value' justification, 'hidden for 25 years' claim, and FOIA denial implications. Affidavit of No Change in Use This affidavit affirms that there has been no change in the use of the property since its purchase in September 2022. Procedural Defects This section outlines all procedural violations, including: - Assessor reclassified property without inspection or documentation.
Page 3
- Township clerk denied FOIA request, confirming no records exist. - Equalization officer defended assessor instead of investigating. - Board failed to document meeting, review evidence, or deliberate. - Board applied incorrect legal standard. - Assessor controlled the narrative; Board relied entirely on him. - Evidence of selective enforcement and lack of uniformity. Statement Regarding Board Member's Prior Involvement This statement details the prior personal involvement of a Board of Review member with the subject property, including hunting on the land and meetings with the petitioner. Timeline of Events (1995 – March 2026) *A clear, chronological record of all relevant events affecting the classification, assessment, documentation, and procedural handling of Parcel 44‑018‑013‑017‑00.* 1995–2021: Original Classification and Township Handling - 1995–2021 — Property consistently classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years. - No inspections, no documentation, and no classification reviews recorded by the township during this entire period. - Property remained largely wooded and unchanged in use. 2021–2025: Caregiving Years - 2021–September 2025 — Petitioner served as full‑time caregiver for his father, limiting ability to engage in farming or land‑use activities. - Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years documents this period. September 2022: Purchase and Immediate Reclassification
Page 4
- September 2022 — Petitioner purchases the property. - Same month — Assessor reclassifies the property from Agricultural (101) to Residential (401). - No inspection performed. - No change in use identified. - No documentation created or filed, as later confirmed by FOIA denial. - Assessor later claims the property was “hidden for 25 years” and “just found.” Late 2022: Assessor Statements and Irregularities - Assessor states the property was “in the wrong class for 25 years.” - Assessor claims reclassification was based on market value, not use — a direct violation of MCL 211.34c. - No supporting documents exist for the reclassification. 2023–2025: Board Member’s Personal Involvement - 2023, 2024, 2025 — A Board of Review member hunts on the property. - Board member meets with petitioner multiple times regarding improvements. - Board member does not disclose this conflict of interest during the 2026 BOR hearing. - Statement Regarding Board Member’s Prior Involvement documents these events. 2023–2024: Township Records and FOIA Issues - 2023–2024 — Petitioner requests township records regarding classification history. - Township clerk states no records exist. - FOIA request denied, confirming the township has no documentation supporting the reclassification. - This establishes a violation of MCL 211.10g (record‑keeping requirements).
Page 5
2024–2025: Assessor Communications and Audit Log Evidence - 2024–2025 — Petitioner communicates with assessor seeking justification for reclassification. - Assessor repeats that classification was changed due to “market value.” - 2025 audit log obtained: - Shows multiple edits made the same day. - Shows no inspection. - Shows no reason codes. - Shows PRE date removed. - Shows classification changed without documentation. - Audit log confirms the reclassification was undocumented and procedurally defective. 2024–2025: Equalization Office Interaction - Petitioner contacts Lapeer County Equalization to inquire about assessor qualifications and compliance. - Equalization officer becomes defensive and defends the assessor instead of investigating. - No review or oversight conducted. - Supports claim of lack of transparency and improper influence. March 2026: Board of Review Appeal - March 2026 — Petitioner appears before the Board of Review. - Board applies the wrong legal standard (“50% farming”), which applies only to the Qualified Agricultural Exemption, not classification. - Board does not review petitioner’s evidence. - Board does not deliberate independently. - Assessor dominates the hearing and controls the narrative. - Board member with conflict of interest does not recuse.
Page 6
- Board denies appeal. March 2026: Filing of Michigan Tax Tribunal Appeal - Petitioner files Small Claims Classification Appeal with the Michigan Tax Tribunal. - Unified packet includes: - Statement of Facts - Legal Argument - Procedural Defects - Affidavits - Exhibits A–N - This Timeline of Events Chronological summary of key events from 1995 through March 2026. List of Exhibits Exhibits A–M as referenced in the appeal. Exhibit Labels A–M This section includes labeled placeholders for Exhibits A through M.