Petition- KristyKrey-MaryAnnVanLokeren Harbor Springs 2025.pdf
Kristi Krey Revocable Trust And Mary Ann Van Lokeren, Trustee, Petitioner Vs. City Of Harbor Springs, Respondent · 25-003205-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
25-0050 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Kristi Krey Revocable Trust and Mary Ann Van Lokeren, Trustee, Petitioners, v. City of Harbor Springs. Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001515 Parcel No. 24-51-15-13-203-173 Hugh A. Eastwood (P86603) Attorney for Petitioners P.O. Box 1692 Caseville, MI 48725 (314) 809-2343 hugh@eastwoodlawstl.com Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) Jackie J. Cook (P68781) Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioners 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 (313) 465-7420 (248) 566-8474 slmandell@honigman.com jcook@honigman.com Erica J. Sarver (P80106) Bodman PLC Attorneys for Respondent 6th Floor at Ford Field 1901 St. Antoine Street Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 259-7777 esarver@bodmanlaw.com Charles J. Grimm City Assessor Representative for Respondent P.O. Box 678 Harbor Springs, MI 49770 (231) 526-2104 assessor@cityofharborsprings.com August 2025 Entire Tax Tribunal Petition Petitioners Kristi Krey Revocable Trust and Mary Ann Van Lokeren, Trustee (collectively “Petitioner”), through their attorneys, Hugh Eastwood and Honigman LLP, state: 1. Petitioner’s principal office address is P.O. Box 2027, Boca Grande, FL 33921.
Page 2
2
61749657.7
2.
Each Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel
number 51-15-13-203-173 ("Petitioner's Property").
3.
Petitioner’s Property has an address of 683 E. Bluff Dr., Harbor Springs, located in
Emmet County, Michigan.
4.
Respondent, City of Harbor Springs, assesses and collects property taxes on
Petitioner's Property.
5.
Respondent’s Board of Review set the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property
at $2,444,800 and set the 2025 assessed value of Petitioner's Property at $2,444,800, which has
resulted in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor.
6.
Petitioner's Property is classified as residential real property. Petitioner's Property
is presently used or available for use for residential purposes.
7.
Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for
a variety of possible purposes.
8.
This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable
value, including and not limited to the “uncapping” of the taxable value, (d) due process under the
Michigan and United States Constitutions, (e) equal protection under the Michigan and United
States Constitutions and (f) uniformity.
9.
March 10, 2025 was the last day for a letter protest to be filed with the Respondent’s
March Board of Review and March 11, 2025 was the last day to appear before the March Board.
Only after March 11, 2025 did Petitioner receive the subject assessment notice in Florida.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the envelope that Petitioner received in Florida with the subject
assessment notice. Exhibit 1 confirms that that on March 10, 2025 the subject assessment notice
was in Grand Rapids Michigan, which explains why Petitioner did not receive the subjectPage 3
3 61749657.7 assessment notice until it was too late for Petitioner to protest to Respondent’s March Board of review. 10. The original Petition filed in this case was timely filed within 35 days of Petitioner receiving notice of the subject assessment increase. 11. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the United States and the Michigan Constitution. 12. The United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee that no person shall be deprived “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const, Am XIV, § 1; Const 1963, art 1, § 17. “The owner of real property is entitled to the protection of constitutional due process with respect to the assessment and collection of property taxes.” Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 482-83; 865 NW2d 52 (2014). “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 314; 70 S Ct 652; 94 L Ed 865 (1950). Indeed, “[t]he 'opportunity to be heard' includes the right to notice of that opportunity.” Dow v State, 396 Mich 192, 205; 240 NW2d 450 (1976). “The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance.” Mullane, 339 US at 314. See, for example, Kemennu v Treasury, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 15, 2023 (Docket No. 362037), and Geldhof Enterprises, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 10, 2013 (Docket No. 313142).
Page 4
4 61749657.7 13. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful for the reasons that: (a) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The 2025 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, is based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is based upon the application of wrong principles; and (d) The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 2025 assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $2,444,800 to $1,250,000; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is entitled.
Page 5
5 61749657.7 Dated: August 21, 2025 Dated: August 21, 2025 Dated: August 21, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Hugh A. Eastwood Attorney for Petitioners By: /s/ Hugh A. Eastwood Hugh A. Eastwood (P86603) P.O. Box 1692 Caseville, MI 48725 (314) 809-2343 hugh@eastwoodlawstl.com Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioner By: /s/ Stewart L. Mandell Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 (313) 465-7420 slmandell@honigman.com Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioner By:/s/ Jackie J. Cook Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 39400 Woodward Avenue Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 (248) 566-8474 jcook@honigman.com
Page 6
25-0050 61749657.7 Exhibit 1
Page 7
/ rd GRAND RAPIDS MI 493 EE — US POSTAGE 10 MAR 2025PM 6 L PAID rik GRAND RAPIDS, Mi -F PERMITNO.657 ape VANLT69 T49740~RFS-1C24 ~~ TI/T0725 — & | VAN LOKEREN PO BOX 2027 BOCA GRANDE Fi 33921-2027 4, 7 willl lpi!