24-003829.pdf
Township Of Marion, Petitioner V City Of Howell, Respondent · 24-003829-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 Marion Township, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003829 City of Howell, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on December 12, 2025. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” On December 30, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, Petitioner states that the Tribunal should consider its acquisition of the subject property to protect the integrity of the special assessments to be a “public purpose” within the meaning of MCL 211.7m that promotes the general welfare and financial security of the Township. Further, Petitioner was not merely holding the land with no purpose. Holding the land while resolving the dispute with the City of Howell promoted the financial security of the Township by ensuring that it could clearly define what property rights the purchaser was buying. Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s exceptions. The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and evidence provided. Petitioner is merely reframing the arguments already presented, and the ALJ properly concluded that it failed to cite any authority that such “use” meets the definition of “public purpose” within the meaning of MCL 211.7m. Petitioner’s argument is that it was “using” the property by holding (i.e., retaining possession of) it is also unpersuasive. The term “use” is defined, in relevant part, as “to put into action or service,” and Petitioner was admittly only maintaining ownership of the property until the 425 dipsute with Respondent was resolved.1 1 “Use.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/use.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003829 Page 2 of 4 Given the above, Petitioner failed to show good cause to justify modifying the POJ or granting a rehearing.2 As such, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this case.3 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a result: Parcel Nos. 4717-01-200-004 and 4717-01-200-005 are not entitled to an exemption under MCL 211.7m for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. The property’s taxable value (TV), as established by the Board of Review for the tax year at issue, is as follows: Parcel Number: 4717-01-200-004 Year TV 2024 $205,800 2025 $212,179 Parcel Number: 4717-01-200-005 Year TV 2024 $109,900 2025 $113,306 The property’s TV, for the tax year at issue, shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 4717-01-200-004 Year TV 2024 $205,800 2025 $212,179 Parcel Number: 4717-01-200-005 Year TV 2024 $109,900 2025 $113,306 IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s exemption within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.4 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. 2 See MCL 205.762. 3 See MCL 205.726. 4 See MCL 205.755.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003829 Page 3 of 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (v) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (vi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, (vii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, (viii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, and (ix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003829 Page 4 of 4 by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By _____________________________ Entered: February 10, 2026 ejg/am PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk