4 10 26 mtt supplement evidence.pdf

Brain Tadajewski Petitioner V Township Of Maple Ridge Respondent · 26-000555-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.

Michigan Tax Tribunal

Docket No. 26-000555

Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02

Petitioner: Brian Tadajewski

 PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE FILING:

 TRIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS CONFIRMING NO RIGHT-OF-WAY 

 DIMENSIONS WERE ESTABLISHED

Petitioner submits the following supplemental evidence for inclusion in the record of this

appeal. These transcript excerpts come from proceedings in the 26th Circuit Court (Case No.

2025-3160-CK) and directly address the right-of-way (ROW) issue that forms the basis of the

2026 assessment dispute.

These excerpts are provided to clarify the factual record regarding the origin of the

assessor’s claimed 33' × 265' ROW dimension.

 I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY

During hearings held on November 19, 2024 and December 3, 2024, Judge K. Edward

Black made clear on the record that:

• the Court did not establish any ROW dimensions,

• the assessor’s claimed 33' × 265' measurement was not part of the Court’s ruling,

• the Equalization/Assessing Department’s statements regarding ROW width were not

derived from the Court’s order, and

• the Court’s ruling did not authorize or identify any specific ROW width on the parcel.

These statements directly contradict the assessor’s justification for using a fabricated

33' × 265' ROW dimension in the 2026 assessment.

 ( 1 of 2 )

II. TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

Exhibit F – Transcript Excerpt (November 19, 2024 Hearing)

THE COURT: “…asking for enforcement of a claimed right of way because of the tax

assessor/equalization indicating that he wasn’t assessed something. But that has

nothing to do with this court or any determination that was previously made. The

Court’s determination was made, and the statute literally says that all highways are

four rods in width. That’s 66 feet.”

Exhibit G – Transcript Excerpt (December 3, 2024 Hearing)

THE COURT: “The statute is directly contrary to that, and it says it’s four rods, which is

66 feet. So, I don’t care what the Equalization Department says. That’s not the ruling

of the Court.”

 III. PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION

These transcript excerpts are submitted solely to clarify that:

• no court order established a 33' × 265' ROW,

• no certified survey or recorded document contains such a dimension, and

• the assessor’s reliance on that fabricated dimension is unsupported by the legal record.

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal consider these excerpts as part of the

evidentiary record in evaluating the validity of the 2026 assessment.

Date: April 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Brian Tadajewski 

 

488 Geronimo Road 

Alpena, MI 49707 

Email: 02legalemail@gmail.com 

Phone: 989-657-3943 

 ( 2 of 2 )

Exhibit F: Trail Court Nov 19, 2024 Transcripts denying Bergs Boundary Lines 4-6 

Exhibit F: Trail Court Nov 19, 2024 Transcripts denying Bergs Boundary Lines 4-6 

VO 

0 Nn 

AWN 

LT SS 

wo SG 

-_-O 

Ww 

® 

NY 

WM 

ew 

NN 

-= 

© 

24 

25 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

THE COURT: 

-- asking for enforcement 

of 

a claimed 

right 

of way because 

of the tax assessor/equalization 

indicating that he wasn’t assessed something. 

But that has 

nothing to do with this court or any determination that was 

previously made. 

The Court’s determination was made, 

and the 

statute literally says that 

all highways are four rods 

in 

width. 

That’s 

66 feet. 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

THE COURT: 

So, 

that 

is 

a 66-foot-wide road. 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

And there's 

no question, 

based 

on the photos and based on, 

I believe, 

the admissions that 

Plaintiff made in his original motion, 

that 

if you take the 

66 

feet, 

everything that 

he had put out there was within that 

area. 

I mean, 

he measured out, 

there’s 

a photo 

in his brief 

that measured out 

33 feet from his eastern boundary. 

And 

it 

showed -- 

I believe he said in the motion that the mailbox and 

those other encroachments were at least 

ten feet beyond that. 

Well, 

if you take the 

66 

feet, 

not the 

33 feet, 

that’s 

an 

admission that 

all 

of those encroachments were well within the 

66 foot right 

of way. 

And so, 

Mr. 

Brege’s here, 

if the Court 

would like 

to hear testimony. 

But 

frankly, 

we believe based 

on the affidavit and based on -- 

THE COURT: 

Do you have the survey? 

MR. 

HENN: 

I 

do.

Exhibit G: Trail Court Dec 3, 2024 TRANSCRIPTS line 6-8 

EE 

BE - "RS 

J— 

FS 

a 

rE 

ry 

vO 

0 

NN 

Wn EWN 

=O 

25 

Exhibit G: Trail Court Dec 3, 2024 TRANSCRIPTS line 6-8 

indicates that the road is only 

33 feet wide, 

correct? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

Yes, 

that’s my response. 

THE COURT: 

OK. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

And it 

-- 

THE COURT: 

The statute 

is directly contrary to 

that, 

and 

it 

says it’s 

four rods, 

which 

is 

66 feet. 

So, 

I 

don’t care what the Equalization Department says. 

That’s 

not 

the ruling of the Court. 

And so, 

your request for that 

is, 

again, 

denied. 

The Court made the prior ruling. 

And at this 

point, 

you're putting me 

in 

a position 

-- 

I tried to warn you 

before, 

that 

you needed to obtain counsel before you did these 

things. 

You're leaving me no choice. 

I forewarned 

you, 

that 

if you didn’t follow the Court’s ruling, 

that the Court was 

going to end 

up having to order attorney’s fees. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

Well, 

Your Honor 

—-- 

THE COURT: 

Go ahead. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

They never 

(inaudible) 

prior notice, 

according 

to MCL 247 

-- 

THE COURT: 

Pardon? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

They never provided 30-day prior 

notice. 

THE COURT: 

Of what? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

To remove anything that they think 

may be 

an encroachment inside 

a right of way they think they 

might 

be. 

14

← View full record