Carlson MTT Appeal Evidence Letter to Tribunal.pdf

Daniel S Carlson Business Trust, Petitioner V City Of Farmington Hills, Respondent · 25-002827-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.

33533 WEST TWELVE MILE ROAD, SUITE 295 • FARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN 48331

TELEPHONE: (248) 406-0620

Carlson-00003

 OUR FILE NUMBER

October 23, 2026

Michigan Tax Tribunal

via electronic filing

Re:

Daniel S. Carlson Business Trust v City of Farmington Hills, MTT Docket No. 25-002827, 

32781 West Eleven Mile Road, Farmington Hills, MI, Parcel ID No. 23-22-126-064

Dear Sir/Madam,

In accordance with the Notice of Telephone Hearing issued on September 15, 2026, we are sub­

mitting this letter and the attached evidence as it relates to the above-referenced case currently 

pending in the Small Claims Division of the Michigan Tax Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).

1. Introduction

For tax year 2025, the Respondent City of Farmington Hills valued the property in question, 32781 

West Eleven Mile Road, Farmington Hills, MI (the “Property”), at an Assessed Value of $568,580, 

which translates to a True Cash Value of $1,137,160. Petitioner, however, contends that the True 

Cash Value and Assessed and Taxable Values of the Property as of December 31, 2024, are 

$905,000 and $452,500, respectively.1

To support Petitioner’s contention of value, the Petitioner notes the following, which are addressed 

in more detail below:



The Property sold at an arm’s length transaction a mere 36 days before the valuation date 

at a purchase price of $900,000.



The Property was appraised less than half a year after the valuation date a value of 

$925,000.



A significant portion of the Property is functionally obsolete because it consists of an ex­

hibit hall originally designed to display taxidermy hunting trophies and host events, all of 

which requires a large amount of utility expense to heat and maintain and is not desirable 

in a single-family home.



At the time of purchase, the Property had significant deferred maintenance which was not 

noted in the Respondent’s records. To date, Petitioner has expended $300,000 in necessary 

repairs and maintenance and expects to spend nearly $200,000 more in the near future.

Petitioner arrived at the $905,000 TCV utilizing the Respondent’s published assessed value growth 

rate of 4.89%. See Exhibit 1, excerpt from Respondent’s annual disclosure to its bondholders. 

Increasing the $900,000 purchase price over 36 days to the valuation date provides a value of 

$904,340. Decreasing the appraised value from the 2025 appraisal of $925,000 utilizing this same 

1

The Petition to the Tribunal alleged Petitioner’s contention of TCV at $900,000. For the reasons stated in this 

letter, the Petitioner has revised that to $905,000.

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 2

rate of increase shows a value on valuation date of $904,760. These are, for all intents and pur­

poses, identical and can be rounded to a TCV of $905,000 with Assessed and Taxable Values of 

$452,500 each.

2. The Best Estimate of True Cash Value is the Price at Which the Subject Property Was 

Sold in an Arm’s Length Transaction Which Closed on November 25, 2024.

The selling price of a piece of property is not presumptively the true cash value of that property. 

MCL 211.27(6). However, the Tribunal, depending on the circumstances of particular cases, can 

give greater or lesser reliance on a sale reasonably near to tax day in determining true cash value.

For example, in WCY Realty v Fairhaven Twp, 2012 Mich App LEXIS 1550 (August 7, 2012) 

(Exhibit 2), the Petitioner challenged the Tax Tribunal’s partial reliance on its purchase price of 

the property in question in determining the 2006 taxable value for the property. Petitioner claimed 

that it purchased the property at a 2004 auction after having been “duped” by the seller into pay­

ing for a “waterfront paradise,” but instead received a “duck-hunting swamp.” Id. at *1. The Court 

of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Tax Tribunal had not accepted the purchase price as “con­

clusive of the property’s TCV” but had properly considered it along with other relevant evidence 

in determining a valuation judgment. Id. at *11-*12.

On the other hand, the Tribunal rejected reliance on a purchase price, and was affirmed by the 

Court of Appeals in so doing, in Sullivan v City of Grosse Pointe Farms, 2014 Mich App LEXIS 

1715 (2014) (Exhibit 3). In that case the evidence showed that the sale occurred 9 months prior to 

tax day and no attempt had been made to show what that price meant in terms of value as of tax 

day.

Thus, the Tribunal can give such weight as it deems appropriate to a recent sale of the subject 

Property. In this case, the facts give more credence to the propriety of the sales price representing 

the Property’s true cash value than in almost any reported case. Additionally, as in the WCY Re­

alty case, there are other items of evidence, including an appraisal, that support Petitioner’s con­

tentions of value.

2.1 The Listing Price History of the Property Demonstrates the Fair Market Value

While Respondent assessed the Property at $568,580 for 2025, indicating an estimated true cash 

value of $1,137,160, the sales price 36 days prior to tax day, November 25, 2025, was $900,000. 

Given that the prior owner had tried to sell the Property unsuccessfully for years prior to the No­

vember 2025 sale to Petitioner, the actual sale price appears more likely to be the true cash value 

as of its date rather than assessed value. That listing history can be summarized as follows:



In November of 2023, the Property was listed for $1,590,000 and withdrawn after 63 days 

when it didn’t sell. Exhibit 4.



It was listed again in March of 2024 for $1,590,000 and again did not sell. Exhibit 5.



In August of 2024, it was listed yet again, this time at $999,900 and again withdrawn when 

it did not sell. Exhibit 6.

The Property was listed once again in October 2024 for an asking price of $950,000. Exhibit 7. 

According to the MLS, the Property was on the market for 77 days this last time, ample exposure 

to the market to indicate the limited demand for this Property, particularly after having been listed

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 3

on three prior occasions over two years. This time the Property was finally sold to the Petitioner 

for $900,000. Petitioner’s purchase was at arms length and, given the history of the prior owner’s 

attempts to sell, would appear to represent the upper end of the value of this Property.

Respondent stated that assessed values in 2025 were increasing at an annual rate of 4.89%. Ex­

hibit 1. To bring the sales price forward to tax day, from November 25 to December 31 of 2024, 

that 36 days equals 9.86% of the fiscal year, so 9.86% of 4.89% equals 0.482%. Increasing the 

sales price of $900,000 by that percentage results in a value of $904,340, which would be the 

indicated fair market value as of December 31, 2024.

2.2. A Significant Portion of Property is Functionally Obsolete

The sales price of $900,000 comes to $133 per square foot, at the 6,747 square feet on the assess­

ing records and MLS listings. The first floor area of the building is approximately that size; how­

ever, the design and construction of the building is such that direct comparisons with other single 

family residences is impossible. A large percentage of the square footage of the subject Property 

was neither designed nor usable for single family residence purposes.

This building was originally constructed as a standard ranch house in 1954 according to Respon­

dent’s records. In 1990, the then-owner constructed a large addition which was not likely to en­

hance the value of the house as a single family residence. A sketch of the Property, taken from the 

assessor’s records, Exhibit 8, reflects that the addition consists primarily of a large hall and gath­

ering space, providing the then-owner with walls to hang his many taxidermy hunting trophies 

(i.e., animal heads), a space for guests to walk through and admire them, and a gathering space at 

one end to serve food and drinks to those guests. See photos with and without hunting trophies in 

Exhibit 9.

The room at the left bottom of the sketch, which says “1983,” is a large, 990 square foot open 

room (doors on three sides) with a large fireplace in the middle with three separate openings (the 

“Gathering Area”). To its left is a second entrance from outside, far from the main entrance to the 

living area of the house, emphasizing the fact that this side of the house was not the residence. 

Above the Gathering Area, you can see the main part of the addition which consists of two open 

areas, one on each side of a 26.5 foot walkway with 17 foot wide openings to the lower level on 

each side. This entire area, while very nicely built, is not suitable for single family use. 

The 1990 addition was built primarily for use as a quasi-museum to display hunting trophies. The 

1990 addition did include two additional bedrooms, but they appear to ancillary the primary pur­

pose of the addition. Because of the institutional nature of the addition, the owner eventually do­

nated the Property to Ferris State University (reportedly after the Respondent rejected it). Exhibit 

10, BS&A Assessing Records. Evidently that didn’t pan out for Ferris State either, because Ferris 

State soon sold the Property to a private party who also seemed unable to find a reasonable use for 

it and put it on the market. Id.

Despite the square footage of this house, it is essentially a standard ranch house with a small 

kitchen, four bedrooms (two of them much separated from the other two), a combined living 

room/dining area, and a den/office, to which has been conjoined the large institutional configured 

space described above. This is a great deal of space to heat, cool, light, and otherwise maintain.

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 4

The costs of operating the house are excessive for a house serving a family of five; monthly elec­

tric costs have been between $500 and $1,200 per month and gas costs have been $100-800 per 

month. Exhibit 11, Affidavit of Daniel S. Carlson.

This is functional obsolescence: “a flaw in the structure, materials, or design of an improvement 

when the improvement is compared with the highest and best use and the most cost-effective 

functional design requirements at the time of the appraisal.” The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th ed, 

p. 623. Further,

In some cases, a developer or property owner creates functional obsolescence by 

incorporating special features … that would not appeal to the market in general. An 

example of superadequacy is an expensive, in-ground swimming pool in a neigh­

borhood of relatively low-cost homes. Equally common is functional obsolescence 

that occurs as a result of changing market tastes or market preferences. Too few 

bathrooms in a residence or warehouse ceiling heights that are below current stan­

dards are examples of functional obsolescence due to deficiencies. [Id.]

Still further, “The superadequacy may have a high cost to carry (i.e., higher operating costs) that 

must be considered.” Id. at 624. The highly unique nature of this exhibit hall and the extraordinary 

costs of maintaining the excessive and less than useful space in the house means that the extra 

space detracts from the value of the Property rather than increases it.

It seems foolish to look at sales of other houses in an attempt to value this one, in particular if any 

kind of straight line reductions or increases based on square footage are used, as are commonly 

done in appraisals. Nothing out there is remotely comparable.

All of this is to say that the $900,000 paid for the Property by Petitioner seems likely to be the top 

of the market for it as of the sale date. Since the value which should be reflected by the assessment 

is the price at which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree, the assessment should be 

reduced to reflect a true cash value of $905,000 (adjusted to the valuation date), given the truly 

limited market for a house such as this, and this house in particular as shown by the multi-year 

effort to sell it at steeply declining listing prices and in light of its functional obsolescence.

2.3 The Property Has Significant Deferred Maintenance, Further Reducing its Value from 

the Respondent’s Contended Assessed Value

One thing is clear: the prior owner, who acquired the Property for only $715,000 in 2020, did not 

invest any money in the Property during his ownership. When Petitioner purchased the Property 

in November of 2024, the Property suffered from massive amounts of deferred maintenance, which 

does not appear to be reflected in the Respondent’s assessment. 

According to the assessment card, the Respondent determined the Property to be in “Good” con­

dition. According to the Michigan Assessor’s Manual, a condition of Good is defined as: “Minor 

visible wear, slightly less desirable, solid and functional.” 

A review of the Affidavit of Daniel S. Carlson (resident and the trust beneficiary of the Petitioner 

trust), submitted herewith and outlining repairs, replacements, and maintenance required to the 

Property after its November 2024 sale, makes clear that the Property suffered from far more than 

“minor visible wear” and that it was far from “solid and functional.” Exhibit 11. Mr. Carlson

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 5

(either himself or through his trust) has invested over $300,000 in maintenance on the Property 

and expects to expend at least another $200,000. This includes:



Gazebo: The Property has a gazebo. The Respondent estimated a value for it of $12,557 

and estimated it to be 79% good. In reality, when the Petitioner hired someone to repair the 

gazebo, it proved impossible due to advanced rot and decay. The gazebo had to be de­

molished and a replacement built at a cost of $10,000, a swing of over $20,000.



Water: The Respondent refers to the Property as being served by City water. In fact, it had 

a well which was on its last legs, requiring the Petitioner to hire out the digging of a new 

well. When no water was found, the house was connected to a second well serving the 

garage. Just maintaining a supply of water to the house ended up costing approximately 

$25,000.



Insulation: The house was not insulated. There may at one time have been some insulation, 

and the Respondent’s assessment card simply checks the line for “Insulation,” but what­

ever might once have been there was mostly gone, evidently blown away due to lack of 

baffles. The Petitioner insulated the house at a cost of $13,000.



Deck: The Respondent’s drawings show a large wooden deck behind the house which is 

certainly included in the assessment. However, when the Property was listed for sale, it 

was actually shown to potential buyers with “Caution” tape wrapped around the deck and 

the realtor openly admitted that it was unsafe and needed to be replaced. Petitioner made 

temporary repairs to make the deck safe and usable at a cost of $25,000.



The Petitioner has had to repair or replace, among other things: 

◦a furnace ($6,000) 

◦one HVAC unit ($15,000)

◦a water heater ($5,000)

◦the pool pump ($4,500)

◦windows ($80,000 so far, another $75,000-100,000 coming)

◦the soffits ($30,000)

◦significant amounts of the electrical wiring and boxes ($12,000)

◦the roof, ($3,500)

◦the gutters, ($14,000)

◦kitchen appliances ($22,000) [See Exhibit 11.]

All this helps explain why the Property sold for $900,000 and why the Respondent’s estimation of 

the condition of the Property as “Good” was erroneous and resulted in a significant over-assess­

ment. Far from being in “Good” condition, this house was a reclamation project. It is not even 

clear that the next lower classification, “Average,” would apply to much of the Property, and cer­

tainly not all of it, as an Average designation indicates: “Normal wear and tear is apparent, stan­

dard attractiveness.” A case can be made from the work required that a significant amount of the 

Property was in “Fair/Poor” condition, which is marked by: “Marked or definite deterioration 

requiring significant overhauls or repairs.” This is a fair description of a property which required 

the new owner to spend over $300,000 on fixing it up after purchasing it and having an additional 

$200,000 worth of work remaining.

This significant deferred maintenance is further evidence justifying the need to reduce the assessed 

and taxable values of the Property as described herein.

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 6

3. The Use of the November 25, 2024 Sales Price for This Property to Determine Fair Mar­

ket Value is Supported by an Appraisal from Mid-2025 for Financing Purposes

After purchasing this Property in late 2024, Petitioner sought to obtain a mortgage from State 

Savings Bank (the “Bank”) in Traverse City, Michigan. In connection therewith, the Bank com­

missioned an appraisal, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 12. The appraisal was performed 

by a Certified General Real Estate appraiser by the name of Buolus (Paul) Ghraib, ASA. Mr. 

Ghraib stated that the purpose of the appraisal was “to develop an opinion of the market value of 

the subect property as improved.” 

In Mr. Ghraib’s opinion, “the market value of the Property as of June 16, 2025 is: $925,000 Nine 

Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars.” Utilizing the Respondent’s published rate of increase 

in property values in 2024-2025 of 4.89%, the period from the December 31, 2024, valuation date 

to June 16, 2025, is 167 days or 45.75% of the year. Thus, one could expect an increase in value 

between the two dates of 2.2372%. The calculation results in a true cash value as of December 31, 

2024 of $904,760. Recalling the calculation bringing the sales price of $900,000 forward to tax 

day, which resulted in a calculated value of $904,340, the results are almost identical. The value 

of the Property as of tax day would seem to be $905,000.

4. The Appeal to the Board of Review Was Proper.

While not likely to be a primary issue, we felt it necessary to address the Respondent’s contention 

that the Board of Review petition was improperly filed. A copy of the Petition to Board of Review (

“BOR Petition”) in this case, including the determination of the Board of Review for 2025, the 

matter under appeal here, is enclosed as Exhibit 13. The Board of Review unanimously denied the 

BOR Petition, stating for its reason that: “letter of authorization not received.”

For numerous reasons, this statement as a basis for denying the appeal ignores the evidence before 

the Board of Review. The Property owner, the Trustee of the Daniel S. Carlson Business Trust, 

signed the BOR Petition. Obviously, the Owner does not need to sign a letter authorizing himself 

to file an appeal. If they did nothing further, the Board should have considered the appeal based 

on the BOR Petition.

Further, the statement by the Board more likely refers to the letter submitted to the Board of Re­

view along with the BOR Petition, which was signed by John A. Carlson of this firm. The state­

ment seems to be that the appeal could not be considered because there was a letter submitted from 

an attorney and no “letter of authorization” was received by the Board. It is even possible that the 

Respondent or the Board intends to suggest that the appeal could not be considered and therefore 

the Petitioner, not having submitted an appeal that could be considered by the Board of Review, 

failed to preserve his right to appeal to the MTT.

If the Respondent or the Board of Review intended any of these meanings, they were wrong. First, 

the BOR Petition having been signed by the Property Owner, the Trustee on behalf of the Trust, 

there was a proper appeal regardless of how the attorney letter is treated. Second, the Petitioner 

incorporated the attorney letter by reference in the BOR Petition, as at the end of paragraph 4, 

Reason for Protest, he stated, “Also see attached,” which referred to the attorney letter, which was 

the only attachment to the BOR Petition. Thus, on the face of it, the Petitioner filed the attorney

Michigan Tax Tribunal

October 23, 2026

Page 7

letter on his own authority. If the Respondent requires written approval of the attorney submission, 

they have it. 

Third, however, the Respondent does not in fact have any requirement that a letter of authorization 

be filed before an attorney can represent a property owner before the Board of Review. One of the 

undersigned, having found no such rule on the Respondent’s website, submitted a Freedom of 

Information Request to the Respondent for: “A copy of the written procedures applicable to as­

sessment appeals to City Board of Review.” Exhibit 14.

The request was granted in full by the City Clerk, see Exhibit 15, with a link to a web page enti­

tled Assessment Appeal Procedure, the content of which is Exhibit 16. No reference is included 

to the necessity of the property owner submitting a letter of authorization before he can be repre­

sented by an attorney. 

The Respondent, and this includes the Board of Review, cannot enforce a non-existent rule with 

sanctions, and their evident refusal to consider this appeal falls in that category. See Butler v City 

of Detroit, 345 Mich App 536 (2023), holding that the City of Detroit Board of Assessors’ re­

quirement that petitioner submit a letter of authorization signed by taxpayer of record was not 

required by Detroit ordinance and that petitioner’s protest was not otherwise deficient. 

In sum, the Board of Review’s evident failure to review the Property owner’s BOR Petition and 

supporting information, including the attorney letter, was erroneous and provides no basis for 

determining that this appeal is unauthorized.

5. Conclusion

Given the arm’s length sale price close in proximity to the valuation date, the appraisal, the func­

tional obsolescence of the Property, the significant deferred maintenance on the Property, and the 

propriety of the petition to the Board of Review, Petitioner requests that the Tribunal find that the 

True Cash Value of the Property for 2025 is $905,000 and that the Assessed and Taxable Values 

for the Property are $452,500 each.

Petitioner and one of the undersigned will be available on the hearing date to testify to the same 

and address any questions the Tribunal may have.

Sincerely,

SHIFMAN & CARLSON, P.C.

John A. Carlson

Robert J. Gavin

jcarlson@shifmancarlsonlaw.com

 

 

rgavin@shifmancarlsonlaw.com 

RJG/hs

xc: Daniel S. Carlson

Robert P. Parrett, City of Farmington Hills

← View full record